|
|
|
|
|
by DoesntMatter22
814 days ago
|
|
I don't trust any of the sources as far as 1:3 vs 1:5. They said they same stuff in every war just to make things sound better for their side. Russia's economy is actually doing quite well. https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-economy-grew-in-2023-despit... I don't think there is any actual way that Ukraine is going to beat Russia in any actual sense. They have been losing territory (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682) and Europe is suffering without Russian gas. I don't have a horse in the race, I just think it's absurd to think you are going to "win" in any sense. Ultimately I think Putin would drop some sort of nuke on the Ukraine before admitting defeat. |
|
And I never said Russia's economy is doing terribly. It did grow. Some fear that it's being propped up by war manufacturing, or is otherwise in a pattern that it can't hold indefinitely, but I don't have enough insight into it. My point was actually to assume that Russia will continue to be able to produce weapons and ammo for the duration of the war, but it could still lose a war of of attrition when it becomes too costly in human lives to continue.
And yes, Putin might nuke Ukraine. The Russians were floating a plan of detonating a single nuke to "shock" Western Europe into fearful inaction. I don't think that will work. If anything, it will only further anti-Russian sentiment and possibly lead to war.
Yes, the West has set and ignored red lines with Russia in the past, to their own detriment. But this will different. If Russia detonates a nuke after failing a military operation that they themselves started, it will show they're not good stewards of a nuclear arsenal. Essentially, they would have proven to the world that they can hold it nuclear hostage to their whims. To not reply in force would throw the MAD doctrine into doubt.