Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
And yet Russia is sending older and older equipment from storage to the front (tanks made in the 1970s and earlier) and buying drones and ammunition from Iran and North Korea because it doesn’t have the resources to replace what it’s using just to remain largely static in Ukraine.
Your argument doesn’t support your conclusion that a negotiated peace on the present lines is Ukraine’s best outcome. On the evidence of what Russia is able to deploy, use and replenish, Ukraine’s best strategy is an attritional one.
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/14...-intelligence/
Quote:
|
But as the war enters its third year, Putin is looking increasingly confident. His main political rival, Alexei Navalny, is dead; vital U.S. military aid to Ukraine is stalled in Congress; and Russia has shifted its economy to a war footing, fueling defense production and economic growth in defiance of international sanctions.
|
Russia doesn't need nervous or hesitant allies to fund them or re-supply them.
Quote:
|
“The Russians, according to our understanding, have always fixed their issues or problems through mass. And this has worked out for them throughout history,” said Rosin, adding that reforms to the Russian armed forces were likely to result in a low-tech, Soviet-style army with “a lot of firepower and artillery.”
|
Russia have the resources, the money and the manpower to re-arm. This current lull suits them perfectly.
As I have said previously, they don't need to advance, they can quite simply hold the territory they have. The front is no longer very mobile, Russian troops will be dug in and will be very difficult to remove and, attritionally, they outnumber Ukraine around 3-1.
Ukraine have done very well by stopping Russia, I don't see how they can push them back.
If they want to fight to the last man, then that's there decision, but fighting to the last man will mean they lose, as Russia has at least 3x as many men.
And if Trump gets in, he will force Ukraine to make a deal.