4 ms·
I partly agree, in that by drip feeding Ukraine supplies we have given Russia time to build up their production rates. And my earlier comment was disputing the
by postingawayonhn 2y ago
I partly agree, in that by drip feeding Ukraine supplies we have given Russia time to build up their production rates. And my earlier comment was disputing the idea that drip feeing the supplies was some kind of intentional strategy.
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.
- fooker 2y agoThey have destroyed the rest of their industrial capacity and economy in the process, an outcome very much desired by US and friends.
- cutemonster 2y agoRussia isn't that interesting any longer, economy wise. China is the competitor to the US nowadays. All Russia has is nukes and troll farms, and corruption.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoRussia has all the minerals to support any size of Chinese war machine ramping. It’s not their economy that matters.
- cutemonster 2y agoThat doesn't make sense. The minerals don't disappear just because Putin fails invading Ukraine. The minerals will be waiting in the ground no matter what.
- aguaviva 2y agoIt seems that something like "they've trashed their economy" would have been a better choice of words. But -- "destroyed"? What's that supposed to mean? What purpose is served by the use of such hyperbolic language?
- tim333 2y agoI don't think US and friends would have any problem with them having a successful economy if they didn't use it to attack and threaten other countries.