And Putin looks more like Nicholas II than Catherine the Great, but whether it will have similar consequences for the governance of Russia… who knows?
Note that Russia has a smaller population now than it had at the start of WW1 or WW2.
… or at the start of their war in Ukraine, 2 years ago
The Russian population overall is aging, with an ever-smaller pool of young people available for all the needs of society, including being fed into the Ukraine meat grinder. It seems that Russia’s war of attrition against Ukraine is also damaging the Motherland. How long is this sustainable?
The natural population declined by 997,000 between October 2020 and September 2021 (the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths over a period).[12] The natural death rate in January 2020, 2021, and 2022 have each been nearly double the natural birth rate.[13]
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the demographic crisis in the country has deepened,[14] as the country has reportedly suffered high military fatalities while facing renewed brain drain and human capital flight caused by Western mass-sanctions and boycotts.[15] Many commentators predict that the situation will be worse than during the 1990s.[16]
In March 2023, The Economist reported that “Over the past three years the country has lost around 2 million more people than it would ordinarily have done, as a result of war [in Ukraine], disease and exodus.”
Ouch.
Isn’t the situation exactly the same in Ukraine? Population pyramid for Russia:
Population pyramid for Ukraine:
Both countries are throwing young men into the war effort, and Ukraine in particular (more so than Russia) is facing a problem with young men fleeing the country to desert or to avoid conscription.
Russia’s allegedly lost another ship to Ukrainian drones. At least they’re having success in one area.
At least two areas, I’d say. Not just ships, but aircraft.
And this seems to be happening a lot more often this past month or so. Something serious is happening here. Ukraine is having a lot of successes at things that were traditionally considered hard to do - destroying major ships at sea, and downing aircraft. Russia sees to have the upper hand only when it comes to mass human attacks. And Ukraine’s problems there seem to stem entirely from a lack of ammunition.
If the West could just get our heads out of our asses on sending enough artillery shells, I have little doubt that Ukraine would prevail on this front as well. Losing ships and planes at this rate makes me think that Russia has hit some kind of tipping point. They’ve lost enough equipment and trained personnel that the hard-to-do jobs like air attacks, air defense, and sea operations, are failing. All they have left is throwing large numbers of poorly-trained troops into the Ukrainian defenses.
What would be a good name for this? Not asymmetrical warfare.
Top-down design? (i.e. what formerly was at the top of the water is now at the bottom.)
That seems entirely appropriate.
When each side is engaging in offensive/defensive efforts that differ from those of their enemy, that’s pretty much the definition of asymmetric warfare. From the article:
Asymmetrical warfare can also describe a conflict in which belligerents’ resources are uneven, and consequently, they both may attempt to exploit each other’s relative weaknesses.
Russia has ships and aircraft, but they’re not good at defending them, so that’s where Ukraine attacks. Ukraine doesn’t have huge expensive anti-ship and surface-to-surface missiles, so they build cheap drone boats and grenade-bearing quad-copter drones. Russia doesn’t have good command-and-control, but they’ve got a lot of cheap bodies, so they don’t mind doing mass wave attacks to claim little bits of ground.
Gotcha. I always thought of asymmetric warfare as urban resistance fighting or “sneak attacks” like the Viet Cong, which doesn’t make sense now that I write it out, because the US wasn’t lining up in Civil War rows either.
AKA a Zerg rush.
In terms of the aircraft what seems to be happening is that Russia is finally committing them more seriously, thus naturally exposing them to loss. Previously they have been very judicious about trying to penetrate Ukraine’s highly effective air defenses. Now they seem to be throwing caution more to the wind, sacrificing losses for more firepower on the ground. Why? Maybe Putin is getting impatient and wants more breakthroughs, damn the cost. Maybe attrition to Russian ammo and barrels is finally causing a dilution in ground artillery support and they need to make up the difference. Maybe they have calculated/are hoping that Ukraine is nearing the end of their rope in terms of missile supply and are trying to saturate or find gaps in Ukraine’s air defenses.
Regardless of the cause, while the increased losses of Russian air assets is a good thing, they aren’t necessarily happening in a vacuum. Hopefully they are burning them to no good use. But from a Russian strategic POV it is possible it might be worth the tradeoff, at least in the short-term.
I forgot these links re: the increased Russian air campaign:
I figured that greater Russian usage might be a factor in what’s happening, but I suspect it’s a bad trade-off. Missiles are cheaper than planes, and pilots sometimes die or are massively injured when they’re shot down. Losing the plane is bad enough, but pilots aren’t cheap or easy to replace. I suspect that’s where Russia is really going to start losing capabilities if this keeps up. You can throw a poorly trained conscript at a machine gun nest, and have at least a small chance of success. But an untrained pilot will just be a smoking ruin at the end of the runway, pretty much every time.
Yeah, they’re having some successes, but the cost seems awfully high.
It’s hard to say how many of the 13 Sukhois the Ukrainians have shot down since Avdiivka’s fall were bombing Tonen’ke when a Ukrainian missile caught up with them. But it’s safe to say the Russians are buying tiny Tonen’ke—a thousand-foot clutch of around a hundred houses—at the cost of several $50-million warplanes plus, possibly, their crews.
They’ve got about 100 of these planes left, and they’ve lost 13 of them so far in this campaign, which seems to have won them one small town. If the Ukrainians can keep up this level of attrition, this lets the Russians take maybe 10 more small towns, before they run out of planes.
Sure, they’re dropping a lot more glide bombs, and that’s letting them take some ground, but it doesn’t seem like enough. Sure, they can drop 100-150 bombs per day, but it seems like they have to drop that many, to have any success.
ETA: and this of course just gets worse for the Russians. Every plane they lose means either fewer strikes per day/week, or more strikes per plane/pilot. So either they lose capacity to drop as many bombs as they need, or they put even more stress on each plane, and lose some maintenance time. So what planes they have left begin to wear down even faster, which just makes it more likely to lose them, to enemy fire or just accidents. Like I said, this is what a tipping point feels like.
The oldest trick in the book, but with a contemporary twist