You don't get to say simultaneously "Russia so strong that the West will tremble before me" and "hey that's not fair, you stole my wallet when I got drunk and fell down and shit myself"

I won't say what you're saying is completely wrong, but Russia also had quite a large hand in the downfall of Russia, both before and after privatization

literally growing faster than every country in the G7

Sure. In 2023, Russia's GDP grew by 2.2%. But also, Libya's grew by 12.5%, and Guyana's grew by 38.4%.

I'm saying that the metric you and the BBC have chosen is relevant, sure, but it's also not the whole story.

Russia's military is literally larger than it was when they started the SMO but nearly all measures. They haven't mobilized even half of their military might in this SMO. And they fought not only Ukraine's entire military but also military aid from the US that literally is equivalent to Russia's entire military budget. So they fought, dollar-for-dollar, a military that was larger than it and it came out bigger. How's that math for you?

Let me make sure I am understanding what you're saying: Russia fought a country that is 4% its size, and directly on its border, and spent an equal amount of money (which because of PPP means they had something like twice as much materiel), outproduced the West massively on artillery / ammunition / what have you, and they spent two years stuck on the border, which means their military's doing good.

Do I have all of that right?

(Actually it's more like 10 years, if you count the initial seizure of Crimea and Donbas, but they really started invading in earnest in 2022.)

(Also -- they're not guaranteed to stay stuck on the border. I do agree with you that the Ukrainians are nearing a collapse of their ability to defend if their aid doesn't come through in which case it'll be a very different situation.)

I said their objective was to make the West overextend itself, because that's how the USA lost Vietnam and Afghanistan

I'm just gonna let the analogy of Ukraine as Vietnam, with a massive country invading a much smaller country that never did anything to it, and then bleeding itself for years and years without achieving anything of value while the small country gets military support from geopolitical adversaries of the original massive country and hangs on giving stubborn resistance, just hang in the air for a while without saying anything else.

There has been no point in this conflict where Ukraine had the upper hand on the war writ large. Every thing that made any gains got swallowed up quite quickly afterward.

Jesus Christ, you guys took back the North? When did this happen? You gotta tell the people in Belgorod, they'll be thrilled.

If the West goes through a recession, or worse, while Russia goes through a boom cycle, you'll quickly see that absolute dollar values don't matter.

War's a hell of a lot more complex than just whoever has more economic might is going to win, yes. That I will definitely agree with you on.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 7 months ago

Strawmen do not become you. No one is saying Russia's military might will make the USA tremble. They are tiny. The point is that, like other tiny enemies the USA has faced down, the USA will lose, because despite their clear dominance in size, scale, supply chains, etc, they're still losing.

Yes, it is possible to say that Russia had it's economic capabilities completely ransacked by the West during liberalization and also that Russia is winning this proxy war and the USA can't do anything about despite spending the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget on it in a single year.

And, despite them spending that amount, Russia's entire military budget did not get spent on Ukraine. Again, Russia has not deployed half of its military to Ukraine (it can't because if it overextended itself like that it would be too vulnerable), so no, Russia did not spend the equivalent amount of money to occupy Eastern Ukraine and destroy most of Ukrainian production, it spent a fraction of its military budget on it, while the entirety of the aid that was equivalent to their entire budget was spent on defense and failed.

As for being "stuck on the border" you keep assuming their objectives and their strategy and then judging by those assumptions. It's pretty clear to most observers that Russia is simply not advancing rapidly and they have stated they don't intend to advance rapidly. And if you look at the terrain, there's good reason for it - it would require very long vulnerable supply chains in completely open fields. It's precisely why both the Germans and the French attempted to invade Russia through Ukraine. Russia is holding a position that prevents that kind of invasion, with a fraction of its force and it is growing it's total military size while doing it and it's doing it under massive sanctions.

As for Vietnam, you can easily see who's bleeding whom by looking at the maths of attrition. Russia is growing faster than the most powerful economies in the world, while increasing the size of its military (UK dropped swimming tests for its navy to bolster the ranks) and while outproducing all of NATO. The trap is for the USA, just like it was in Vietnam and like it was in Afghanistan. This time, however, the USA invasion didn't look like invasion because it was NATO expansion, which is physically just moving soldiers, bases, and weapons platforms into a sovereign nation in order to threaten the next neighbor. Russia sparked the conflict to stop that expansion and call the bluff of the NATO nations, and it looks like it was a bluff because, here we are.

As for Ukraine in the North, again, tactical gains are not changing the collapsing line nor shooting down missiles landing in Kiev. The North has been shown to be immaterial.

As for the economic might point missing the entire to topic, if Russia's economy grows its people and institutions will benefit. If NATO countries economies contract, its people and institutions will suffer, despite the dollar values being higher.