You're assuming Russians will just keep on as they are as if nothing happens. But it's not guaranteed. What if they repurpose a plant or two to making the cheapest tanks possible, let's say T-34? What if they call a general draft?
If I was asked to jump into a T-34 against modern ATGM's I would revolt more then the tankers already are.
A T-34 would be next to unless in Ukraine, and would just be a death sentence, a T-34 probably isn't even worth fielding against the more modern armour and ATGM's that are in Ukraine.
Not to mention that Russia likely doesn't have any tank groups trained on the T-34 so they would need to spend time doing that as well.
If Russia calls a general draft they are beyond desperate, their actual contract army is already doing incredibly poorly in Ukraine, called up conscripts would do even worse.
Its worth keeping in mind that Russia still needs to defend the rest of its territory whilst invading Ukraine, they are incredibly paranoid about NATO and if Finland/Sweden join NATO they will need to deploy more troops to that border to try look like a real super power again.
When running away from a tiger, the best strategy would be to move faster than the tiger. This, however, is not always feasible.
A "good-enough" strategy would be, simply, to move faster than some other guy. This can definitely be achieved by running.
Having that in mind:
0. Russia does not need the best hi-tech army in the world. To win, it just needs to out-gun Ukraine.
1. If it takes 100 Russian "tin cans" to destroy one Ukrainian tank, and Russia can produce 101 "tin cans" to 1 tank Ukraine can produce, the strategic balance is not good for Ukraine.
2. Russia produces its own armor, guns, planes, and SAM. Ukraine does not.
3. Russian materiel-producing plants are not under any danger of bombardment. Ukrainian plants are.
4. Russian population is 3:1 to Ukraine's. "Russian losses are twice as big as Ukraine's" is, tactically, nice "feel-good" news. Strategically, that's terrible news.
5. Finally, shall we talk about Russian nuclear arsenal vs. Ukrainian nuclear arsenal?
It’s probably best to start with your last point. There’s a reason Russia and the Soviet Union never actually nuked a country, it’s a threat, that’s it. If Russia nukes Ukraine Russia likely ceases to exist. Russia constantly postures about nukes because they cannot actually use them.
Russians loses are closer to 4:1 not 3:1 and this is with them fielding modern tanks.
Russia is currently giving Ukraine so many tanks that they have more than they started the war with, so it looks like Ukraine is okay from that perspective. Additionally Russias costs in this more then just people and tanks.
America is not sitting on the border for nothing, they are collecting some of the best SIGINT and ELINT of semi modern to modern Russian gear that they could hope for, as well as providing Ukraine with intelligence.
I personally think a lot of Russia failures in this war have nothing to do with the equipment they are fielding and everything to do with a massive failure in Russian doctrine.
Russia is fighting a war from the 1940s, Ukraine isn’t.
It’s been pretty amazing seeing Ukraine capture intact Russian crypto gear and EW vehicles.
> If Russia nukes Ukraine Russia likely ceases to exist.
...while Ukraine certainly ceases to exist. Also, the only country that nuked another country hasn't ceased to exist, so not sure where your claim comes from.
> Russians loses are closer to 4:1 not 3:1
Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
> It’s been pretty amazing seeing Ukraine capture intact Russian crypto gear and EW vehicles.
In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
> ...while Ukraine certainly ceases to exist. Also, the only country that nuked another country hasn't ceased to exist, so not sure where your claim comes from.
My claim comes from the clear line that was drawn in the sand by NATO. A nuclear attack demands a deviating response. This is also the exact reason why Russia will never use nukes. They understand that there state ceases to exist once that button is pushed.
The comparison to the only use of nukes during a war is also invalid as during that time every nuclear power was effectively on the same side. That’s obviously no longer true with the current conflict.
> Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
These are the visually confirmed loses that we are seeing. But if you want to dismiss them with the same comment sure but if you do that you can claim to know what it is (3:1 or otherwise).
> In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Knowing how a cryptosystem works and knowing the EW capabilities of your opponent is a huge upper hand. It may not lead to the instant breaking of ciphers or countermeasures against Russian EW equipment but it makes it a lot easier.
This ignores all the ELINT/SIGINT that America is getting from hoovering up all the signals at the border too.
> Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
Here’s the long term outcomes if Ukraine loses the war. Multiple European countries that border Russia likely want to join NATO and the European countries in NATO largely increases there defence spending.
That seems like a pretty poor victory to me.
But long term we don’t know who is going to win, but we do know it’s not going to be via suicidal moves like nuking Ukraine or building T-34s again.
Second point is not true, even though Ukraine doesn’t have the same capacity for everything, it still produces some tanks and ATGMs. Also civilian planes with Antonov Plant (they weren’t too productive last couple of years though)
I think “production” here is not the most important part, even Russia uses mostly late Soviet era tech, slightly updated.
It mainly repurposes old Soviet tanks, unless you count ten or so of the T-84. I doubt Kharkiv Armored Plant is a viable tank production facility with all the fighting that goes around Kharkiv.
The West (not just NATO and not just EU) are being very generous with NLAWs, Javelins, and Panzerfaust 3 among others that can take out the best Russian tanks. Ukraine also makes a very effective stugna-p that's tripod mounted and allows control from a safer location. Not only are these weapons much cheaper than any Russian made tank, they don't take much training on the order of a few hours to a few days depending on the weapon, and they are being produced in many western countries and donated to Ukraine who provides the man power to use them.
So take a motivated Ukraine citizen, train them for a weekend, and they can periodically take out a Russian tank at around $1M with 3 expensive people inside. I've seen studies showing that out of 110 shots (in the Ukraine war) that achieving 90 kills wasn't unusual. In particular the better weapons are fire and forget, removing the skill needed to accurately hit the tank. I have noticed that Ukraine military are getting really good with the stugna-p and will steer the weapon in a different direction then steer the weapon on target at the last second. Presumably to hit the most vulnerable part of the tank and hide their launch location.
If you mean cheaper armored vehicles that opens up quite a few additional weapons like RPGs, recoilless rifles, Bayraktar tb2 drones, etc. For the less armored or unarmored anti-material rifle rounds can be quite effective. In particular Ukraine has had great success just shooting out tires of armored vehicles and trucks. Even replacing a truck tire at the end of a long supply line is a substantial logistical burden that Russia is not handling well.
Basically it's not going to work having Russia produce more tanks than the Ukraine can destroy. Without a well trained and motivated army that can implement a combined arms attack the armor is just sitting ducks for modern weapons. This is a huge setback for Russia whose military doctrine depends heavily on tanks. It bodes poorly that they are calling in the reserves, which are basically untrained (unlike the reserves in other countries), even compared to the poorly trained soldiers already in the field. Running out of solders just 4 weeks in is pretty bad, and losses have already exceeded much longer Russian invasions.
Russia does produce it's own tanks, however they need to import parts, which has been a big bottleneck and last I heard tank production had stopped in the only tank factory in Russia.
As far as planes go, yes Russia makes planes and helis, but they are significantly more complicated than tanks and depend on more imports than the tanks do. They are also risky to fly when the Ukraine is so well supplies with stingers, starstreaks, and anti-air systems like the s-300. Ukraine has also had growing success taking out Helis with anti-tank weapons.
The longer the war goes, the worse it's going to get for Russia. Sanctions, decreased GDP, trying to compete with the sum of the economies in the EU and NATO. The brutality demonstrated is providing significant incentive for any nearby country that doesn't want to see a Ukraine like invasion in their future. Looks like Finland and Sweden that were generally neutral and promised not to supply weapons to Russia's adversaries and not join NATO have changes their minds because of the Ukraine invasion. Keep in mind that the GDP of the EU is around 18T and USA is 21T. Russia was around $1.5T, before the invasion and sanctions. Even ignoring loss of life, estimates put the daily cost to Russia for the war is around €20 billion per day. Clearly even a 100 day war, even without sanctions, is going to be VERY expensive for Russia. Even just Finland and Sweden have around 50% of the GDP of Russia and needing a 3:1 ratio for invaders vs defenders is a common rule of thumb.
I agree with the points about Ukraine's tactical successes. The argument I'm making is that tactical successes aren't important. Please don't refute my argument with more points about Ukraine's tactical successes.
> Looks like Finland and Sweden
It's possible that Russia swallows their joining NATO, as it did with the two rounds of NATO expansion in the past (former Warsaw pact, then Baltics). It's also possible that Russia sees that as an existential threat, as it did in the case of the announced third NATO expansion (Georgia and Ukraine).
> the GDP of the EU is around 18T and USA is 21T. Russia was around $1.5T
If this escalates to a direct military conflict between EU|US vs. Russia, this can only be expected to lead to a mutually assured destruction of all involved parties. I guess in that case the previous disparity of GDP would not matter much.
> It's possible that Russia swallows their joining NATO, as it did with the two rounds of NATO expansion in the past (former Warsaw pact, then Baltics). It's also possible that Russia sees that as an existential threat, as it did in the case of the announced third NATO expansion (Georgia and Ukraine).
Russia has no real choice this time, they have already shown that there military is both weak and ineffectual. Either Finland or Sweden would absolutely crush the Russian military in their own countries.
In recent years Russia has focused their economy on resource extraction while allowing the farming and industrial sectors to become dependent on imports. As long as sanctions remain in place it is unlikely Russia will be able to consistently manufacture any modern industrial products including tanks.
The largest and only tank factory has gone idle for lack of parts.
Russia had a "Made in Russia" program for the military. But apparently bribes let many side step the rules and post proud "Made in Russia" announcements in the press, while basically relabeling imported parts. Even more amusing is a fair number of those parts come from the Ukraine.
More factories isn't going to help, and these days it's hard to steer, power, target an enemy, or communicate without chips, which Russia is running very short of. Intel, AMD, and even Russia designed CPUs (Elbrus) are hard to come by, TSMC (and other foreign fabs) are honoring the sanctions.
Apparently even the basics like steel are getting hard to come by.
> The largest and only tank factory has gone idle for lack of parts.
This has been reported in western media; it might be true, or it might be a part of information war. Assuming it's true, shall we expect this to be a permanent problem or a temporary one?
> it's hard to steer, power, target an enemy, or communicate without chips
Hard but not impossible. Given that there's a military attache in each Russian embassy, and given the chips are sold over the counter pretty much anywhere, shall we expect this to be a permanent problem or a temporary one?
are Chinese fabs honouring sanctions? what about downstream suppliers of generic ARM chips?
>Apparently even the basics like steel are getting hard to come by.
aren't they a sizeable steel exporter? "2018, Russia exported 33.3 million metric tons of steel, a 7 percent ... Russia exports steel to more than 130 countries and territories."
