-2

The size of the Russian military build-up near Ukrainian border and the possible scale of war have both been repeatedly claimed to be most significant since World War II. For example (emphasis is mine):

Reuters (February 24):

How Biden handles the crisis, which Western officials fear could spiral into the bloodiest European conflict since World War Two, is expected to have profound implications for his political fortunes and U.S. relations with the world

Politico (February 24):

His pronouncement at 5:45 a.m. Moscow time — during a simultaneous U.N. Security Council meeting in New York, at which Western nations pleaded for Putin to exercise restraint and de-escalate — could spark the largest land war in Europe since World War II, one that could result in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian troops and civilians, and spark a refugee crisis.

CNBC quoting Joe Biden (January 25)

WASHINGTON -- President Joe Biden cast a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine in stark historical terms Tuesday, saying, “it would be the largest invasion since World War II.”

BBC quoting Boris Johnson (February 21)

Evidence suggests Russia is planning "the biggest war in Europe since 1945", Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said.

What is the basis for such assessment? For example, in terms of the scale of fighting, the level of NATO involvement and the loss of life, this war (even if counting from 2014) is still well behind the Yugoslav wars in the last decade of the XXth century.

Remarks

  • The question is about fact-checking (regarding the preceding Russian military build-up) and the probabilistic/intelligence/military assessment of the outcome of the ongoing military conflict.

Background
Yugoslav wars
I have already mentioned the Yugoslav wars, which resulted in 130,000-140,000 deaths and millions of displaced persons. In Croatian war alone the numbers of combatants for the two sides peaked at 200,000 and 145,000 - which is comparable (or greater) than the alleged Russian pre-war build'up. The war in eastern Ukraine (since 2014) has resulted in about 14,000 casualties so far.

Czechoslovakia in 1968
Another interesting example is the Warsow Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968: while the number of casualties was relatively small (about two hundred deaths), the initial troops build-up of 250,000 exceeded the reported Russian strength in the current crisis. At its peak the invading force was about half a million strong.

Thus, the claims regarding the Russian pre-war build-up are questionable on the factual basis, while the projections regarding the expected number of casualties are likely exaggerated.

Similar questions (requests for reliable information
Is "100,000 soldiers near the Ukrainian border" a rare occurrence?
What's the basis for preparations to imminent Russian invasion into Ukraine?
How close is supposed "Russian build-up" to Ukrainian border?

Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica
  • 3,088
  • 2
  • 17
  • 46
Roger V.
  • 20,106
  • 3
  • 39
  • 114
  • 3
    Maybe wait with this question a bit more. You might have to update it every day otherwise, especially the last paragraph. Also hopefully you realized the use of "could" in the cited texts. Speculating about some ongoing event extending to the future isn't useful here. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 24 '22 at 09:54
  • 2
    I don't understand how we're meant to read the minds of these journalists to answer this q – Charles1267 Feb 24 '22 at 10:06
  • @Charles1267 It is about factchecking. – Roger V. Feb 24 '22 at 10:07
  • 4
    "probabilistically it can be a great exaggeration" Probabilistically doesn't work. We don't have a hundred Earths and can repeat the experiment that often and then see in how many cases how many people die. We don't know what could (there again I used the word) have happened. We don't even know what will have happened. That's why I advocate to wait more to know at least this. My personal guess is that they simply went for the size and military prowess of the opposing armies and that is also enough for me to say that this is a terribly grave situation. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 24 '22 at 10:18
  • @Trilarion That's why I advocate to wait more to know at least this. Clearly, the media are not waiting - tthey have been making this claims for some time... which is why the question. (Probabilisticlaly is the only way that gives the quantitative predictions - and I would hope that this is what the military and intelligence services base their actions and assessments upon. This obviously implies bayesian rather than frequentist paradigm, suggested in your post.) – Roger V. Feb 24 '22 at 10:38
  • @RogerVadim For Bayesian analyses you have to specify your prior belief. But we all probably believe different things. Why not just wait? Then we have at least one data point. And you ask us to speculate here. The word "could" was used so we cannot really say anything against it. There is certainly enough evidence to justify that but to actually do "fact checking" here would require us to look into heads and additionally speculate about the scope of the war. But we don't need to speculate about that (which wouldn't be very useful), we will know for sure if we wait. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 24 '22 at 10:45
  • "this is what the military and intelligence services base their actions and assessments upon" You could ask for that. Something like "What is a reasonable confidence interval for the expected number of casualties and civilian deaths in the ongoing war in Ukraine based on military and intelligence information?. Problem is, we don't have that information, so we probably cannot do that and simply don't know what will happen. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 24 '22 at 10:49
  • 2
    Voting to close: what will happen depends on Putin's actions, we are now asked to second-guess journalists who second-guess him. – o.m. Feb 24 '22 at 11:12
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because this is not a question – kandi Feb 24 '22 at 12:20
  • This needs focus. Commenting on the answer below you state that the question is about troop numbers, while in the question you emphasize deaths. I would edit the question to hone in on what is actually being asked. – Avatrin Feb 24 '22 at 14:39
  • @Avatrin Please read the question carefully - I speak about both deaths and troop numbers. – Roger V. Feb 24 '22 at 14:56
  • 1
    @RogerVadim It's in the first paragraph. There's more about casualties. I think just removing that paragraph may clear things up (note: I have not voted to close this question... nor to reopen) – Avatrin Feb 24 '22 at 15:08
  • Most of those statements claim that the war could become the largest since WWII. So to determine whether they are correct or not, we would have to figure out how many more soldiers Putin might send, how many Ukraine will muster (they have about a million reservists), which other countries might join in.... – Obie 2.0 Feb 24 '22 at 17:55
  • @Obie2.0 some western leaders have spent the last couple of months claiming that they know exactly how many soldiers Russia has and where, how, and when it will attack ;) – Roger V. Feb 24 '22 at 19:34
  • @RogerVadim - With satellites, hiding troop movements is very difficult these days, so to a certain extent they do. – Obie 2.0 Feb 24 '22 at 19:45
  • @Obie2.0 this answers your preceding comment. – Roger V. Feb 24 '22 at 20:24
  • @RogerVadim - Not really. We can see when troops starting moving, but how can we know how many reservists will join? Would Putin try to take Belarus too, and would Lukashenka let him? Would he consider trying to attack Poland? How many soldiers would NATO deploy if that happened? How can anyone know for certain with so many unknowns? – Obie 2.0 Feb 24 '22 at 20:32
  • @Obie2.0 I am interested in facts and intelligence assessments, while you are engaging in wild speculations: no, Russia will not attack Poland - because Poland is a NATO member and such attack will trigger a nuclear war, assuring the destruction of Russia alongside everyone else. No ground war between Russia and NATO is possible - the role of American or british detachments in Europe is to guarantee the American involvement in any conflict, and thus the nuclear response. – Roger V. Feb 25 '22 at 05:30
  • 1
    Journalists already scaled back a bit. Today it is "Russia’s attack against Ukraine — one of the most significant military actions in Europe since World War II" which is certainly true. I think the issue here is mostly a sound bite. Premature estimation to give statements more meaning. In truth we simply don't know how bloody this invasion will be. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 25 '22 at 14:06
  • My comment is meant to point out that your question is asking for speculation, by pointing out that there are so many possibilities that speculation is pointless. – Obie 2.0 Feb 25 '22 at 14:53
  • For instance, you speculate that Putin would not attack a NATO country because it would lead to a nuclear war. But I know that there has been combat between China and India and India and Pakistan in their borders without leading to the use of nuclear weapons—and those are countries that actually have their own nuclear weapons, not that are part of an alliance that has them. So I don't speculate about what could happen. – Obie 2.0 Feb 25 '22 at 14:59
  • @Obie2.0 it is not a speculation, but a probabilistic assessment - the probability of Putin attacking a NATO country and risking a nuclear war is so low, that it can be neglected for all practical purposes. Like in statistical physics: the probability that the Red Sea opened in front of Moses is not zero, but negligeable for all practical purposes (such an event probably has never happened since the beginning of the Universe) - does it ring the bell? It is about quantitative predictions after all ;) – Roger V. Feb 25 '22 at 15:02

1 Answers1

3

I believe that the question is out of scope for this board, it is too close to second-guessing the internal motivations of the actors. If it is not out of scope:

Read the exact words.

The quotes talk about "in Europe," which has, at times, a fuzzy border. There is a frequent perception/bias in western Europe to dismiss the Caucasus as *not quite European," whatever the geographic definition may say. The Algerian departments of France were also out.

That leaves, mostly, the Balkan wars as a comparison. Counting numbers of troops (using the media reports of close to 200,000 Russian regulars), this is highly likely to be bigger. As for casualties, we cannot know yet. It depebds on how long Ukrainian troops fight. It also depends on how the Balkan conflicts are counted, one big mess or several wars.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • As I pointed out in the question and in the comments, the question is about factchecking the troop numbers as well as the intelligence/military assessment for the situation. I have now also included Joe Biden and Boris Johnson statements, as well as explictly expanded the information regarding the Yugoslav wars. – Roger V. Feb 24 '22 at 12:10