[ggm]

> “Ukraine has more aircraft than it used to and better systems — this shouldn’t be happening six months into a war with Russia.”

Ugh. Journalese.

Try this: "Ukraine has more aircraft than it used to and better systems - this can only happen six months into a war with Russia if their supply chain has ramped up and donated or purchased resources have increased, in line or ahead of mounting losses"

Nothing unique to the war with Russia precludes Ukraine obtaining better, and more supplies. There is no SHOULD.

[Nomentatus]

But compare and contrast the Iraq-Iran war, etc - aircraft were eaten up on both sides rather quickly. Note too that fighter pilots are rarer and actually more expensive (to train properly) than the jets IIRC. We haven't had a lot of fairly even struggles in the decades since. Russia was expected to overwhelm Ukraine in a real fight. The War in Vietnam might support your argument, a flood not just of planes but plenty of Russian pilots to secretly fly them kept the Vietnamese air force not just in the fight but quite successful.

[ggm]

The whole "fog of war" thing has a long time to play out. But, perhaps naively, I truly believe Putin thought he had a 3 day walk in the park, and did not expect a 165 day robust defence.

There's no sane military doctrine which uses your worst equipment first in a lighting strike, or 5 months later. This says to me that the truly horrendously awful state of their equipment and supply logistics is not some cunning plan. They can still win, but it's not the war he wanted. The longer it goes on, the more Russia digs itself into an economic hole, and attrition will tell on voters.