|
|
|
|
|
by avmich
762 days ago
|
|
It looks at least very reasonable. It's rarely argued that Russia has a severe disadvantage in conventional armaments compared to the West, or even USA alone; even Russian sources periodically admit that openly. It's also rather clear at this point that the war is the war of attrition, so supplies basically determine the results. West doesn't even need to have particular political will - the robust supplies with armaments will do the trick without anything else. No particular sets of sanctions, no diplomatic masterpieces, no boots on the ground are needed - just enough of supplies to Ukrainian army. This may be more problematic, though, than a combination of approaches. Which we see today. The combination, though, doesn't provide results particularly fast - it still is good, though, but not enough for reducing the war in time to some relatively short periods starting from now. Well, we're in the real world. It's not perfect. |
|
Only if you don’t know much about Russia.
The outcome of the war depends almost solely on Russian willingness to fight. We are already two years into the two-week supply of Russian rockets.
Edit: formatting