So how long do you think Ukraine can hold out if we extrapolate the casualties rates from the last 12-24 months or so?
I wouldn't know because I don't have their numbers, and unlike you, I don't trust my offhand estimates.
However I will trust the Ukrainians to know, and it seems safe to reason that the more and better arms they have -- the farther off the potential triggering of such a limit will be.
The key consideration to keep in mind here is that for Ukraine, the fight is existential -- while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional. So the limits for what is bearable in terms of any category of loss must be weighted very differently (apart from the what the numbers might say; and assumes we even have reliable numbers, which of course we don't).
So the flip side of your question might be:
"For how many years does Russia want to keep spending 10 percent of its GDP on this little expansionist fantasy project gone horrible wrong? And how does this math change once Putin is gone, or his lights start to dim?"
> and unlike you, I don't trust my offhand estimates.
Yet you're fine with handwaving probably the biggest issue Ukraine is facing (besides the risk of losing western support/Trump winning the election and making a side-deal with Putin).
> However I will trust the Ukrainians to know,
The government probably does. Of course due to perfectly understandable reasons they will not share that information with the Ukrainian population at least until the war is over.
> while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional
Hopefully. But underestimating the resilience of authoritarian/totalitarian regimes (compared to more free/democratic societies) isn't necessarily particularly wise. e.g. the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s was just as senseless (from the perspective of both sides) and even more bloody yet it went on for 8 years with hardly any significant dissent in either country (besides the Kurds the Iraq).
The casualties and overall cost US sustained in the Vietnam war, especially if we adjust by the duration of both conflicts were almost miniscule compared to the cost the Russian society is seemingly willing to pay.
For the sake of simplicity -- I'm assuming Trump won't win at this point (it could happen but the odds are looking quite low). And unlike Trump, the new administration won't simply drop-kick Ukraine or otherwise be in a hurry to cut a dirty deal just to get this thing over with.
Yet you're fine with handwaving
I'm not; I'm saying it's a question I'll trust to the Ukrainians to evaluate and decide for themselves.
That's something entirely different from what you're suggesting that I said.
[Don't underestimate resilience of dictatorships; the Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years]
That's actually an argument for why time is more on Ukraine's side.
If Russia gives up after 8 years, or even 10 or 15 -- then Ukraine will have squarely won.
One can think of different ways to assess the likely outcome of an election -- but a betting market (with its gigantic built-in biases) would have to be one of the dodgiest.
Meanwhile reliable polls show a steady Harris lead.
I wouldn't know because I don't have their numbers, and unlike you, I don't trust my offhand estimates.
However I will trust the Ukrainians to know, and it seems safe to reason that the more and better arms they have -- the farther off the potential triggering of such a limit will be.
The key consideration to keep in mind here is that for Ukraine, the fight is existential -- while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional. So the limits for what is bearable in terms of any category of loss must be weighted very differently (apart from the what the numbers might say; and assumes we even have reliable numbers, which of course we don't).
So the flip side of your question might be:
"For how many years does Russia want to keep spending 10 percent of its GDP on this little expansionist fantasy project gone horrible wrong? And how does this math change once Putin is gone, or his lights start to dim?"