Russia lacks troops, ammunition for major offensive in Ukraine, NATO official tells Reuters
Russia lacks troops, ammunition for major offensive in Ukraine, NATO official tells Reuters
Speaking ahead of the NATO summit in Washington, the official told reporters that Russia has suffered "very high" losses as it attempts to utilize limited territorial gains.
The comments in the article are spot on. NATO, the US, and the EU have failed at ending the war. They are way too fucking slow. They could be ramping up production like in war times and helping Ukraine, but none of that is happening. Ukrainians are dying daily and have been for 2 years, yet they lack proper support. It's just enough to keep them going, but not more while the suits just count their money and spout platitudes.
"We must defeat Russia". Fucking arm Ukraine to the teeth then, you dumb pigs. Sanctioning Russia is barely making a dent on the frontline.
Ukrainians are dying daily and have been for 2 years...
You mean since 10 years, when Russia invaded Crimea.
A perspective that must be understood is they do not want a total Russian collapse that would be worse. If Russia falls apart like a total defeat would cause then you'd have migrations and far more violence than now with infighting and likely warlords picking up Putin's remains and fighting for whatever is left.
They want a grinding war that ends up draining Russia so the people are sick of it and surrender not the government. Which is a much harder thing to do.
Blowing up Putin and the Kremlin is like blowing up a porta potty, shit everywhere. They'd rather it slowly melt away like snow.
Keep hitting those ammo factories
It'd probably be bad in terms of global stability and whatnot, but it'd still get a chuckle out of me if China just went "Well, It's free real estate" and invaded russia.
China wants Taiwan. While some land in Russia might be nice it isn't a big deal. They like Russia getting away with attacking Ukraine because it sets a global precedent that large powers can take over weaker powers.
That's not entirely true. China also likes a weak Russia that's selling them raw materials underpriced. They like this destabilisation, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
I know, but a man can dream.
They don't need to invade if they can turn it into a de facto vassal state.
The question is if they actually need more land or just more resources. I imagine they already get the latter for dirt cheap, so why bother actually invading.
"To sustain real offensive operations, we think that Russia would have to secure significant ammunition supplies from countries beyond what it is already getting from Iran and from North Korea," the source noted, adding that a new wave of mobilization would also be necessary.
...
According to the source, Ukrainian defenses have improved significantly, albeit also suffering heavy losses. It will take some time before Kyiv accumulates enough resources to launch its own counter-offensive, the official noted.
The thing is, I'm not sure whether we have troops and ammo for any sort of defensive in Ukraine. I would like to hope that with foreign help we can outlast russians, though
The US can by practical means drive Russia out of whatever Ukrainian territory they wish, anytime they wish, and covertly if they wish.
The US goal isn't to win quickly. They'll drag out the war to drain the resources of the enemy. It's Afghanistan again, except:
- power disparity is greater and more transparent
- backlash similar to Afghanistan is likely avoided with NATO membership
As long as Ukraine is supplied weapons, the rule of thumb is that Russia looses as many troops as the pre-war population of the city/place they are trying to take over. So they would need 38 million troops to take over Ukraine.