4 ms·
> and no match for surviving Ukraine's frequent resupply of western military donations The West is only giving weapons to the Ukraine, and unfortunately, as go
by shakow 4y ago
> and no match for surviving Ukraine's frequent resupply of western military donations
The West is only giving weapons to the Ukraine, and unfortunately, as good as they may be, they still need boots on the ground to be operated, and Ukraine is bleeding them as fast as Russia.
That's not much of a problem now that Russia won't/can't mobilize “for real”; but were it to come to this end, the long-term perspective wouldn't look so shiny for Ukraine.
- LittlePeter 4y ago> Ukraine is bleeding them as fast as Russia Proportionally maybe yes. But count-wise Russians are losing more soldiers than Ukrainians.
- shakow 4y agoThat maybe true (do we really have precise enough numbers for that?), but they are of the same magnitude order, which is the problem.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoAn army of untrained, underequipped nobodies is alright for a civil defense. It's useless for an invading force in a hostile land.
- shakow 4y agoThat's what happened in every lengthy major war: the highly-trained experienced pre-war army melts, and they are replaced by hastily trained new recruits. Still, it turns out they work just fine, even on the offensive: Romans conquered Carthago, the Soviets crushed Germany, the Entente put the Alliance to its knees, North-Vietnam is now the ruling body, Mao beat Chag Kaï Chek, the Whites lose the Russian Civil War, etc. Assuming the populations remain unto control from the governments, my informed guess is that the deciding factor between the Ukraine and Russia will be economical, as it had been for all grindfest-wars. And at this game, I wonder what will crumble first: the Russian economy or the Western support to the Ukraine – hopefully the former. In any case, victor or vanquished, the Ukraine will end up gutted by what is probably a good contender for the stupidest war of the 21st century.