Putting aside your opinion or feelings on this issue, this article fundamentally misrepresents what wars of attrition are about, especially the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
Yes, soldiers are an attrible resources during a war, but so is materiel.
If Western Powers stop supplying Ukraine with military aid, they would lose this war of attrition very quickly. That’s a fact.
However, if Western aid continues, Russia cannot win that war of attrition in the long term, possibly not even the medium term. War time economies are designed to run hot and fast to feed a war, but they are not sustainable.
I am not making this as an argument for, or against, Western aid to Ukraine. I am saying this to refute this article and how they misrepresent the facts surrounding this particular war of attrition.
And we haven’t even gotten into the political fallout associated with soldier attrition. Something that Ukraine is better prepared to handle, given they are the country being invaded. It’s just a fact, invaders face greater domestic political pressure over losses, than the country defending an invasion. That doesn’t mean Ukraine is immune from those pressures, just that they will not feel them the same way Russia does.
And before anyone accuses me of being callous, or soulless, I am very aware that soldiers are human beings. With families, lives, love, and a desire to live. But this article is discussing a war of attrition, and in a war of attrition, soldiers are also a resource.
To put a point on it, wars of attrition are not about defeating your enemy militarily on every battlefield, or never giving up ground. They’re about being able to sustain your ability to fight longer than your opponent.
Putting aside your opinion or feelings on this issue, this article fundamentally misrepresents what wars of attrition are about, especially the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
Yes, soldiers are an attrible resources during a war, but so is materiel.
If Western Powers stop supplying Ukraine with military aid, they would lose this war of attrition very quickly. That’s a fact.
However, if Western aid continues, Russia cannot win that war of attrition in the long term, possibly not even the medium term. War time economies are designed to run hot and fast to feed a war, but they are not sustainable.
I am not making this as an argument for, or against, Western aid to Ukraine. I am saying this to refute this article and how they misrepresent the facts surrounding this particular war of attrition.
And we haven’t even gotten into the political fallout associated with soldier attrition. Something that Ukraine is better prepared to handle, given they are the country being invaded. It’s just a fact, invaders face greater domestic political pressure over losses, than the country defending an invasion. That doesn’t mean Ukraine is immune from those pressures, just that they will not feel them the same way Russia does.
And before anyone accuses me of being callous, or soulless, I am very aware that soldiers are human beings. With families, lives, love, and a desire to live. But this article is discussing a war of attrition, and in a war of attrition, soldiers are also a resource.
To put a point on it, wars of attrition are not about defeating your enemy militarily on every battlefield, or never giving up ground. They’re about being able to sustain your ability to fight longer than your opponent.