I think many people are forgetting that the larger army, vastly outnumbering Ukrainian resources in numbers, has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion. And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare. Russia has defenses, but no ability to move forward. They are just trying to hold on to what they took in those first few months and are very slowly failing at that. If Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose. I do not think Russia will use nukes -- any use of a nuke is basically on Russia's own land -- according to them -- and will affect them as much as Ukraine. But the question of ending the war is an interesting one. Do we see Russia continuing the war if they lose most of their ill-gotten territorial gains? What happens to those insecure areas? Are people going to rebuild, i.e. invest scarce resources in unstable areas? Or will they just become dead zones, DMZ borders?
World News
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
Ukraine will run out of material before they reach the Azov sea. You can calculate this yourself based on the verified losses and land gained. In addition manpower isn't infinite for Ukraine.
And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare
The US has just approved the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine. So that might change soon. IIRC, Ukraine has had a shortage of airplanes to use. Russia has been very reluctant to use the airplanes that they have because they keep getting shot down, and they simply can't replace them at the speed necessary (especially since their economy has crashed, and China is the only country that can supply them with the circuitry that they need).
A bigger problem is that Russia has air defenses and air bases inside Russia. NATO in general has been very reluctant to transfer offensive weapons to Ukraine that would make it possible to strike those--entirely legitimate--targets inside of Russia, because that would be an escalation. But to have air superiority, you need to ensure that those SAM batteries, RADAR installations, and forward air bases are not in the picture. So to break the stalemate, Ukraine has to be able to make strikes against Russia, in Russian territory. That's potentially very dangerous.
If it's allowed to grind on, Russia wins eventually, because they have a population many times the size of Ukraine, and can keep throwing bodies at them. So Ukraine needs to win air superiority, which means striking targets inside of Russia.
how's this analysis working out for ya?
Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose.
You have a whole entire counteroffensive that shows the exact opposite.
Also
has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion.
Have you taken a look at a map of the current situation? That's just straight up bullshit
Russia allready lost. They just keep ignoring it
"U.S. intelligence says Ukraine will fail to meet offensive’s key goal"
territory ukraine has reclaimed in its counteroffensive
I'm curious, do you still feel this way?
If you want to know what the smartest guy in the US military thinks, read this
(Assuming, of course, that you don't consider the Marine Corps Gazette to be Russian propaganda)
Ukraine is on its fourth army, which has been badly mauled in a counterattack lasting two months with gains measured in single digit miles and casualties in the tens of thousands.
This is who they were sending to the front in APRIL LAST YEAR
Old men and boys
But at least Russia's out of missiles!
