|
|
|
|
|
by totalZero
1336 days ago
|
|
I don't think Russia has the same cultural attitude toward casualties and attrition that the US has, and it seems to me that their objective is more than a pure grab of territory. > Embarrassing military defeat? Check. The war is ongoing. I have a couple of friends who share your mentality toward it, but perhaps it's better to be doubtful of the outcome and cautious about Russia's next steps. > Leaving behind billions in hardware? Check. The US did this in Afghanistan too. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/politics/afghan-weapons-l... > Financially and militarily drained? Check. Petroleum-based economies operate better in high-price environments. Sanctions can be painful but with oil above $80, there's no easy way to financially drain a petrostate. They keep pumping and selling. Russia's strategic position gives it unique power to manipulate the petroleum markets by affecting supply to key markets in ways that induce price volatility. Separately, the nuclear threat is real and it's hard to imagine that a country with so substantial a destructive capability is militarily drained. It's true that some young people fled Russia due to the mobilization; I met one such man earlier this month and talking to him gave me a greater understanding of Russian public sentiment toward the war. Still, it seems unreasonable to evaluate Russia's manpower without putting it in the context of the size of the substantially smaller Ukrainian military. |
|
And yet they eventually left Afghanistan. The casualties became too much, and arguably helped toward the collapse of the USSR.
Putin may be willing to accept unlimited casualties, but the Russian population isn't. Not for annexing eastern Ukraine.