Thread by @Mylovanov

David Sacks's misinterpreted John Mearsheimer who's misinterpreted the history and Ukraine. And the Twitter went wild.

So, let's take their arguments apart.

1. The Russians are winning the war. Ukraine had the upper hand in 2022 but Russia has it in 2023. 1/

Actually, the 2023-2022 comparison is wrong. Even after the battles for Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson were lost, Russia had more territorial gains in 2023 than in 2022.

In 2023, the Russia mobilization wave produced no result. The number of casualties doubled. 2/

And there is chaos and infighting within the Russian military leadership. All of this was exchanged for gaining a small non-strategic city of Bakhmut, but even that is contested.

Now recall Belgorod, Crimea attacks, Black Sea fleet problems, UAVs over Moscow, 3/

continuous long-range attacks in Russian territory, gas embargo, oil price ceiling, primary and secondary sanctions, Russian fiscal challenges, international isolation, firmer support for Ukraine, F16s, tanks, shadow storms ... How is Russian winning? 4/

2. This is a war of attrition. 3 factors decide: (1) Balance of resolve. (Both sides are resolved.) (2) Population. (3) Artillery.

Let's start with resolve. In Ukraine, the entire people has resolve. In Russia, the Kremlin and even then not everyone. 5/

We have seen Russian power structures crumble and fast in the past. You can never predict when, but Russia can fold at any moment and if it does, it will be spectacular. Everyone will abandon the ship maneuvering for the post-war power play. 6/

3. Russia had a 3.5 to 1 population. This has grown to about 5:1 as a result of 8+ million Ukrainian refugees.

This is a valid argument. Russia is much bigger and has more people. But that's exactly its weakness. It is an empire and it has suppressed its people for long. 7/

Recall the end of the Soviet Union - everyone fought with everyone in Russia. There is no love lost between different regions. Moscow doesn't care about Belgorod, and Belgorod hates Moscow. You can try to mobilize all of these people for a war of an unclear purpose. 8/

Do this and you will end up thrown out of power. The war in Ukraine is all games and fun for most of the Russians as long as they don't have to pay the cost themselves. We do not see people resisting en masse in Belgorod and raising to protect their cities and villages. 9/

That's very different from Ukraine where every village resisted.

So, yes, there are more people in Russia, but their morale is low, training is inadequate, and they will sooner fight each other than unite and be willing to die in the name of Putin. 10/

4 Artillery is the “king of battle.” Balance of artillery is somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 in Russia’s favor. The US doesn’t have enough artillery to give Ukraine

Every statement here is problematic. It's true that artillery is critical, but precise artillery is more important

The West has precision, Russia doesn't.

It is also true that Russia has more artillery than Ukraine, but does it work. It might come as a surprise to people like John or David that artillery barrels have limited lifetime. 12/

Russians were shooting at the rate 20-50K per day. This definitely put a stretch on most of the artillery units in operation and they need barrels replaced. That's a real problem and not easily solvable. Talk to people in the artillery, better still on the ground. 13/

Next, artillery is important but attack drones could be more important, and much cheaper. So, here comes a parity or even advantage to Ukraine. Then, there is electronic / jamming warfare, surveillance etc etc. So, it is a war of technology. 14/

Whoever adapts and innovates faster has the upper hand. And in this war it is Ukrainians. For morale reasons and for structural reasons. The Russian military and technology is not the best in the world. but now it has been proven to be much weaker than it was thought before. 15/

But even if all the arguments above are ignored, the artillery angle is still weak. Because if Russia had such an advantage in artillery and it was all that mattered, then please please please explain Belgorod events. 16/

5. Casualty Exchange Ratio is at least 2:1, meaning that two Ukrainians are likely dying for every Russian. The Russians are not doing mindless frontal assaults. 17/

This is truly wishful thinking. Yes, the Russians are doing mindless frontal assaults, there is ton of evidence from Bakhmut.

And everyone I have spoken to who either has direct experience or is a military expert says that the ratio is in favor of Ukrainians, by much. 18/

This is because Ukraine is defensive force, and Russia is attacking. So, the ratio is in favor of Ukraine. 19/

6. Ukraine pushed large numbers of troops into Bakhmut in a losing effort. Ukrainians are becoming desperate to conscript men. Russia has not fully mobilized yet. 20/

No, it is Russia who has dragged people into mobilization. It is Russia who has pushed large numbers of troops into Bakhmut to die for no reason. And it is Ukraine that has predominantly volunteered or professional army force. Even more than a year after the war. 21/

7. Russia will take the 4 oblasts they already annexed plus (if they can) another 4 oblasts to the Dnipro River including Odessa and Kharkiv.

That's delusional. Russia has not been able to take a single regional center during this campaign, expect Kherson which was taken back.

I think Russia should concentrate on keeping Belgorod and Crimea under control rather than dream about Odesa and Kharkiv. 23/

8/ Mearsheimer believes that if the Russians are losing the war, the likelihood of nuclear use to rescue the situation is high. 24/

This argument assumes that nuclear power always wins. But nuclear powers lose and often. From the US in Vietnam to Russia in Afghanistan.

Putin is losing his last war, and the history will prove Snyder right, Mearsheimer wrong. But at what human cost

https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1656736506629718037?s=20