While the Zeepers here and in DC were crowing that the Ukes had the Russians on the run, this is what they were doing. The Uke counteroffensive was more of the same winner take all gambit. NATO marshaled everything it had for the one big push, victory and on to Russia. The thought of what happens next if the counteroffensive failed never crossed their minds.
Now that Russians are in such a strong position, vis a vis the West, in this war of attrition, they will accomplish their goals of incorporating all ethnic Russians areas of Ukraine into Russia and ensuring NATO will not threaten them from Ukraine. Once those tasks are accomplished the Russians will once again fall into their impregnable defensive lines and wait for the West to make its same mistake again.
The hilarious thing is the The Russia was telling the West EXACTLY what it was doing [Sergei Shoigu] - and buffoons like Ben “Henny Bodges” Hodges completely ignored the info.
The hilarious thing is that The Russia was telling the West EXACTLY what it was doing [Sergei Shoigu] - and buffoons like Ben “Henny Bodges” Hodges completely ignored the info.
Yes, Russia won WWII ( or the great patriotic war if Russian) but at a great price. It was a close thing.
It is obvious the Russians did not believe the Ukrainians would survive the first "quick poke". The current war is because of bad intelligence by the Russians and a weak US President, Joe Biden.
If Russia "wins" it will also have lost because of lost manpower and industrial capacity.
China is the real winner in the Ukrainian war. Watch for China to encroach on disputed lands in Siberia.
Wars of attrition are terrible things for both sides. No one wants to be in a war of attrition because the losses for everyone are horrible.
We spent 20 - 30 years in the Middle East, fighting Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Not terribly serious stuff. Lots of terrorists with the occasional armored assault. But we have now “pivoted” away from that.
The DOD now speaks in terms of Great Power conflict. That's either Russia or China. We think we might have to fight them.
I would state with great confidence that the US cannot win any attritional war. We would refuse to lose the men, and we have not the capability to replace the equipment. If it's a war of attrition, we would just lose.
A quick war? A blitzkrieg? A big knockout blow from Gen Schwarzkopf? No. You are not going to take out either Russia or China through some glorious 10-week assault to their capitol.
Our only real hope is a massive nuclear war. As far as I can see, that's really the only thing the Pentagon really has on the table. Either that or chest puffing and posturing for lots of Defense dollars with no intention of fighting a real war.
But if there is a war, and if we think we're going to win, then we would go nuclear. I think that's dumb. But I do not think the US is capable of winning a war in any other fashion.
> If the West is serious about the possibility of a great power conflict,
That’s the problem. The West isn’t. If it was serious, it wouldn’t be focused on filling the ranks of its armed forces with fruits, nuts, and flakes.
Why do you think the Black Sea Fleet has shrunk dramatically, and is no longer effective in the Black Sea?
Why does Russia only have 1/2 of the number of AWACS type planes that it used to have?
Why do Ukrainian FPV pilots keep hunting down Russian armor and trucks?
Why hasn't Russia, in their latest offensive, been able to capture as much land as Ukraine liberated in their counteroffensive last summer?
Why do you think that the description of the Ukrainian counter offensive you read in the main stream western media was even remotely close to the actual plans?