Head of Ukraine’s national foreign intelligence service – “We have studied…the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. We are aware of Russia’s long-term plans…at least until 2030.”
Marco Rubio is in Trump’s administration. Nothing that comes from there should be assumed true.
They are not running out of Ukrainians. They will have enough of them for another 1300 years with this pace of losses. Also the Russia isn’t running out of Russians for several centuries at this pace.
What is happening, however, is that the Russia is losing soldiers faster than it can recruit new ones.
They’ve run out of youthful soliders and are drafting older men now.
Second, I’d imagine the pace of losses would accelerate once Ukraine started drafting the elderly and children, but it won’t come to that. Also a lot of Ukrainians have already left to dodge the draft.
Lastly, why are we even piddling about troop numbers? They seem insignificant given the larger problems Ukraine is facing. Let’s circle back to my original points.
The main, possibly only, glimmer of hope in the article was “assets in and outside Russia had strong evidence that Russian arms production during 2025 has flatlined and is likely to contract, because of parts and labor shortages,” and Russia is drafting 100,000 fewer men than last year. That seems well short of “starting to win,” unfortunately. Ukraine also appears to be losing 1/3 of their military support if what Zelensky said in the article is true.
Russia is fighting a war of choice but is continuing on with callous disregard for it’s own troops. Their arms production is slowing down but so are their drafting efforts. North Korea is providing artillary shells and rockets. Ukraine is losing 1/3 of its military support and its army is aging. Unless they figure out how to fight in a new way that restores their ability to maneuver, then all they can hope for is a negotiated settlement.
Finland has 5,6 million inhabitants and a wartime military strength of almost one million men, when the military trained reserve is counted in the number. Of course that would mean a huge deficit in workforce, and that would be devastating for the economy. But there are that many men ready to serve if needed. Each one has a specific position earmarked for them in case that a war erupts.
Ukraine has some 40 million inhabitants, so it will be able to gather an army of at least five million men if its population finds motivation for that.
It is quite surprising that they are able to be this uninterested in defending their country after all this time in war, but in the other hand: Until 2014 Ukraine’s military was extremely similar to what Belarus’s still is now in 2025. You could die in the army through being beaten up for fun by your own superiors. And because many military commanders have received their training before 2014, a noteworthy share of them still have very little respect for the individual soldier. The fear that you could end up serving under such a commander is an important factor, of course.
But also: Whatever the reasons for the comparatively low motivation for self-defence, if the Russia was to begin seriously advancing, that motivation would rise. It’s a problem that kind of solves itself. If it starts having serious consequences, the Russia will increase its pace. If the pace is increased too much, Ukrainians will start bothering to defend their country in larger masses than they now do. And then the size of the army will be recovered more and more, until the Russian advance will be halted. It’s a self-correcting problem.
Ukraine’s losses are proportionally smaller than those of the Russia, and the defending party in a war is able to muster soldiers more easily (or rather: less difficultly) than the aggressor.
Even if the size of Ukraine’s army would shrink because of recruitment problems, it feels quite unrealistic to assume that it would shrink as fast as that of the Russia.
It’s super unfair towards the soldiers at the front that they need to serve year after year without being relieved. But the Ukrainian military is not in a danger of collapsing because of this.
Marco Rubio is in Trump’s administration. Nothing that comes from there should be assumed true.
They are not running out of Ukrainians. They will have enough of them for another 1300 years with this pace of losses. Also the Russia isn’t running out of Russians for several centuries at this pace.
What is happening, however, is that the Russia is losing soldiers faster than it can recruit new ones.
First, Rubio is parroting a wildly accepted fact. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2024/05/16/7455980/
They’ve run out of youthful soliders and are drafting older men now.
Second, I’d imagine the pace of losses would accelerate once Ukraine started drafting the elderly and children, but it won’t come to that. Also a lot of Ukrainians have already left to dodge the draft.
Lastly, why are we even piddling about troop numbers? They seem insignificant given the larger problems Ukraine is facing. Let’s circle back to my original points.
Russia is fighting a war of choice but is continuing on with callous disregard for it’s own troops. Their arms production is slowing down but so are their drafting efforts. North Korea is providing artillary shells and rockets. Ukraine is losing 1/3 of its military support and its army is aging. Unless they figure out how to fight in a new way that restores their ability to maneuver, then all they can hope for is a negotiated settlement.
Finland has 5,6 million inhabitants and a wartime military strength of almost one million men, when the military trained reserve is counted in the number. Of course that would mean a huge deficit in workforce, and that would be devastating for the economy. But there are that many men ready to serve if needed. Each one has a specific position earmarked for them in case that a war erupts.
Ukraine has some 40 million inhabitants, so it will be able to gather an army of at least five million men if its population finds motivation for that. It is quite surprising that they are able to be this uninterested in defending their country after all this time in war, but in the other hand: Until 2014 Ukraine’s military was extremely similar to what Belarus’s still is now in 2025. You could die in the army through being beaten up for fun by your own superiors. And because many military commanders have received their training before 2014, a noteworthy share of them still have very little respect for the individual soldier. The fear that you could end up serving under such a commander is an important factor, of course.
But also: Whatever the reasons for the comparatively low motivation for self-defence, if the Russia was to begin seriously advancing, that motivation would rise. It’s a problem that kind of solves itself. If it starts having serious consequences, the Russia will increase its pace. If the pace is increased too much, Ukrainians will start bothering to defend their country in larger masses than they now do. And then the size of the army will be recovered more and more, until the Russian advance will be halted. It’s a self-correcting problem.
Ukraine’s losses are proportionally smaller than those of the Russia, and the defending party in a war is able to muster soldiers more easily (or rather: less difficultly) than the aggressor. Even if the size of Ukraine’s army would shrink because of recruitment problems, it feels quite unrealistic to assume that it would shrink as fast as that of the Russia.
It’s super unfair towards the soldiers at the front that they need to serve year after year without being relieved. But the Ukrainian military is not in a danger of collapsing because of this.
I never said Ukraine would collapse, but they’re not winning for the reasons I already mentioned
Ukraine won’t collapse.
The Russia will collapse.
How does that mean the Russia has a chance to win?