Ukrainian military personnel on the Kurakhove front report that troop numbers have been drastically reduced — a setback more severe than the pressing need for additional weapons
This is not Hearts of Iron IV or something alike. The pure size of an army or population is not a relevant stat when trying to predict the outcome of a war. Superiority of equipment, training, strategies, logistics, supplies etc are all far more decisive.
Equipment is absolutely important. But I’d say this fact underscores the importance of sending good equipment and weapons to Ukraine, and allow Ukraine to use it in the most effective way - and thus not having to sacrifice everyone to the meat grinder.
Of course it isn’t the only criteria. Nevertheless Ukraine needs more soldiers, superior equipment doesn’t help you to win a war if there’s no one to use it or to few to use all of it.
And superior equipment would save the lives of ukrainian soldiers so fewer would be needed to fight back Russia. So the conclusion should be to supply Ukraine with what it needs.
However, you said
Russia has no regulations whom to send in battle and how many.
Don’t get me wrong. Of course send everything we have to them, Taurus, F-16, billions of dollars. Damn, hit Putin in his Kreml with drones. We should have sent the equipment way earlier when they said they would need it and not months later. (Fuck you, Olaf Scholz.) If we would have done it earlier, we now wouldn’t talk about how to Ukraine needs more soldiers. Still send the weapons anyway. But now we talk about the need for soldiers and we can’t ignore it when Ukraine simply doesn’t have enough soldiers to handle all their weapons and fight back the Russian army on some parts of the front. And that they need more soldiers and have to mobilize is what have I heard a few times in the last weeks.
Okay, and what are “we” (as in Ukraines western partners) to do about this? We cannot send ukrainian refugees back with a gun and a helmet. We cannot wololo russian soldiers into ukrainian ones. We cannot conjure up soldiers magically. What we can do is send weapons, ammunitions, medical supplies etc. We can enforce sanctions against Russia and its oligarchy making it least profitable and discouraging to fight this war.
Or do you want to send troops?
Never said we could do anything about that directly (maybe indirectly by sending money). I just said we shouldn’t ignore the problem and downvote the post.
That it’s not a video game means also that you can’t so easily refute the entire thesis and approach of the linked article by appealing to some kind of simplistic ideal model of warfare where morale and recruitment do not matter at all to an army. Conscripting the unwilling has its costs, and here we have one attempt to describe how some of it is playing out on the Ukrainian side.
Don’t judge things just from the headlines, lemmy. It’s a bad habit. This reporting is credible enough, and El País a sufficiently respectable publication, that it deserves better than that.
Did you recognize I’m answering to a comment, not the article? Don’t “Don’t just read teh headline” me, because you’re wrong.
The article itself is (imo) problematic, too, though. First, the headline feeds into the dangerous narrative that Ukraine couldn’t win the war. It is a statement, not a question that gets examined and studied. Second, the article itself doesn’t support the headline as a definitive statement, it talks about the issue of desertion and recruitment, not the actual number of soldiers. It’s a misleading headline. Third of all, it’s one persons opinion and observation, not an objective, broadviewed examination of the issues that tries to take many viewpoints into account (for example the influence of slow support by Ukraine’s partners, that Russia faces similar recruitment issues etc).
The Article is a representation of one person’s view, and it’s fine at that. But it’s nothing more.
This is not Hearts of Iron IV or something alike. The pure size of an army or population is not a relevant stat when trying to predict the outcome of a war. Superiority of equipment, training, strategies, logistics, supplies etc are all far more decisive.
Equipment is absolutely important. But I’d say this fact underscores the importance of sending good equipment and weapons to Ukraine, and allow Ukraine to use it in the most effective way - and thus not having to sacrifice everyone to the meat grinder.
That is trivial, I thought.
Of course it isn’t the only criteria. Nevertheless Ukraine needs more soldiers, superior equipment doesn’t help you to win a war if there’s no one to use it or to few to use all of it.
And superior equipment would save the lives of ukrainian soldiers so fewer would be needed to fight back Russia. So the conclusion should be to supply Ukraine with what it needs.
However, you said
and that simply doesn’t matter as much.
Don’t get me wrong. Of course send everything we have to them, Taurus, F-16, billions of dollars. Damn, hit Putin in his Kreml with drones. We should have sent the equipment way earlier when they said they would need it and not months later. (Fuck you, Olaf Scholz.) If we would have done it earlier, we now wouldn’t talk about how to Ukraine needs more soldiers. Still send the weapons anyway. But now we talk about the need for soldiers and we can’t ignore it when Ukraine simply doesn’t have enough soldiers to handle all their weapons and fight back the Russian army on some parts of the front. And that they need more soldiers and have to mobilize is what have I heard a few times in the last weeks.
Okay, and what are “we” (as in Ukraines western partners) to do about this? We cannot send ukrainian refugees back with a gun and a helmet. We cannot wololo russian soldiers into ukrainian ones. We cannot conjure up soldiers magically. What we can do is send weapons, ammunitions, medical supplies etc. We can enforce sanctions against Russia and its oligarchy making it least profitable and discouraging to fight this war.
Or do you want to send troops?
Never said we could do anything about that directly (maybe indirectly by sending money). I just said we shouldn’t ignore the problem and downvote the post.
That it’s not a video game means also that you can’t so easily refute the entire thesis and approach of the linked article by appealing to some kind of simplistic ideal model of warfare where morale and recruitment do not matter at all to an army. Conscripting the unwilling has its costs, and here we have one attempt to describe how some of it is playing out on the Ukrainian side.
Don’t judge things just from the headlines, lemmy. It’s a bad habit. This reporting is credible enough, and El País a sufficiently respectable publication, that it deserves better than that.
Did you recognize I’m answering to a comment, not the article? Don’t “Don’t just read teh headline” me, because you’re wrong.
The article itself is (imo) problematic, too, though. First, the headline feeds into the dangerous narrative that Ukraine couldn’t win the war. It is a statement, not a question that gets examined and studied. Second, the article itself doesn’t support the headline as a definitive statement, it talks about the issue of desertion and recruitment, not the actual number of soldiers. It’s a misleading headline. Third of all, it’s one persons opinion and observation, not an objective, broadviewed examination of the issues that tries to take many viewpoints into account (for example the influence of slow support by Ukraine’s partners, that Russia faces similar recruitment issues etc).
The Article is a representation of one person’s view, and it’s fine at that. But it’s nothing more.