The purpose of the drip feeding is, unfortunately, to get Russia closer to a total collapse rather than a quick loss for them to retreat and build up their strength again for the next 20ish years to repeat it.
It’s not ideal for Ukraine right now.
It’s not ideal for Ukraine right now.
Either way pretty much all their pre-war modern equipment has already been destroyed. Now they're fighting with really old stuff like T-55s pulled from storage, newly manufactured equipment, or whatever North Korea thinks it can spare.
"According to Joseph Fitsanakis, professor of intelligence and security studies at Coastal Carolina University, “Russian military production is currently outpacing that of the US and all of NATO member states combined. This may be hard to believe, but Russia is obligated to do it if it is going to outpace the support given to Ukraine."
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/russia-races-ahead-...
1. What is the difference between absolute quantities comparing against all relevant players,
2. How long would it take to bridge the gap at current production rates, and
3. Can that rate of production be sustained long enough for it to alter any fundamentals?
The point to rebut isn’t that Russia is making more, it’s whether they can continue to do so ongoingly before Ukrainian advances, regime falter or economic collapse, US/China step-in, or internal unrest will dramatically weaken or make the current Russian negotiating position untenable.
The article seem to indicate that it's much more sustainable for the West than for Russia.
Both sides are aching (very badly) for this thing to be over, or at least taken off the stove.
One can quibble further as to the details -- which are a matter of metrics, wildcards, politics. And (as recent events have shown) there are still many cards to be played.
But that's the fundamental equation we need to keep in mind.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ongoingly-redesigning-...
I agree that it's not in common use.
It didn't. As we say in Poland "paper will accept everything". And russia is known for shameless propaganda.
Also, I don't think it's an "until" about China stepping in, they seem to be squarely on Russia's side, just presenting themselves slightly more moderate in public to appear suitable as a mediator. (Maybe sort of like the US does with Israel)
Finally, there is BRICS and some massive shifts of attitude in Africa that seem to work in Russia's favor.
This is again first derivative. Russia annexed Crimea, sent unofficial troops to Donbas, in 2022 moved rapidly and captured a lot of territory... But later was pushed back severely. And after that, it was gaining terrain in a truly snail pace.
BTW India and China are in an ongoing border conflict, the hostilities don't end there, with India banning many Chinese apps for example. They're nowhere near as united as EU or NATO, it's more like the Visegrád Group.
With regards to the broader claim that Russian production is outpacing that of the west. Yes, with artillery shells that's probably true, though we are continuing to ramp production. There aren't really any other areas though where a combination of western production + stock drawdowns couldn't supply Ukraine with greater quantities of material.
China is the competitor to the US nowadays. All Russia has is nukes and troll farms, and corruption.
But -- "destroyed"? What's that supposed to mean? What purpose is served by the use of such hyperbolic language?
Nevertheless, Russia clearly chose to stop their support; the Assad regime was cooked.
Except they weren't "the same" parties at all.
I realize that and I realize that this outcome is bad for Moscow, but the Nazis (and others, e.g., the Turks) went through Ukraine to invade Russia whereas no one has ever gone through Syria to get at Russia, so I would expect Moscow to care less about whether the government of Syria is aligned with Moscow than whether the government of Ukraine is aligned with Moscow.
Had all the escalations of the recent 2 years be condensed to the first month of war, BRICS (and not only, e.g. the pope was quite supportive of russia, not sure if he still is) could unite and coordinate a response, and the west could possibly lose the war in the political sense, kind of like Israel lost it. I'm not putting an equal sign between Israel and Ukraine, but who would predict a few years ago common harsh criticisms against Israel in mainstream TV?
Personally I think the west should have been firmer early on that the Russian invasion was unacceptable and they should go or be forced out. Instead they were kind of wishy washy.
Absolutely not, it's not intentional.
- Suddenly, the world defense base needed to get on up to a level to match the world's 5th largest army, with all its stockpiles -- regardless of if its just lil ol Ukraine, Russia is putting its full effort in.
- Politics in US delayed it several months, I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least 6.
Your points would have been valid maybe one year into the war. Unless you’re suggesting the US military industrial complex takes three years to respond.
You cannot appease an expansionist power that's intent on restoring the glory of an empire from days gone by (real or imagined).