There is much in your statement to consider, I spent almost 40 years in the military and had much the same thoughts about the Russian military abilities, but where I differ is this war has shown that belief to be mostly false.
The Russian gains have been made through tactics only successful against a military as lacking as Ukraine.
After two years they have not established air superiority. Their aircraft hide miles behind the lines, a tactic that would not be successful aginst NATO. They rely on massed mostly inaccurate artillery and massed human and equipment attacks, again something that would not be successful against NATO.
There is an artillery shell shortage because NATO doctrine does not depend on massed artillery, but massed aircraft and aircraft delivered ordinance.
In days or weeks, Russian aircraft would be destroyed, air fields wrecked, logistics gone. Artillery are sitting ducks to precision air launched weapons.
Take what has happened to the black fleet in two years, multiply by several factors and that would be the first days results.
The fact is, despite claims that putin is going in soft, the Russian military has its hands full with a much smaller opponent with a relatively small amount of western aid. Himars would not even be a minor part of NATO doctrine, yet look at what it has done to Russian military efforts.
At the beginning we were told Russia has unlimited ammo and equipment, which is why they are begging China, iran and nk for support.
The only reason russia has made the gains they have, remember they have lost half of the territory they initially took and since then gained two relatively small cities at huge costs, is because the west has held back support in the levels they had in a timely manner.
Imagine 15 patriot systems, the UShas over fifty, 500 Bradleys instead of 160, we have 5000, 500 abrams instead of 31, we have over 6000, atacms in June 22 when Russian assets were sitting ducks close to the front, cluster munitions in june22 instead of over half way through Ukrainian summer offensive, and f-16 training beginning day one instead of year and a half into war
No the inevitable victory of the Russians was and is not certain.
Still not our fight.
“No the inevitable victory of the Russians was and is not certain.”
Agree, ask Putin!
The Russian gains have been made through tactics only successful against a military as lacking as Ukraine.
It is just Russia's good fortune it is fighting a military as lacking as Ukraine. Otherwise they might have to actually mobilize and move beyond a Special Military Operation (SMO).
Tried to follow the thread to see where then "name calling" was, and if there was it was so mild I didn’t see it....
I must apologize as the repetitive name calling was not in your posts. I am sorry for my misattribution.
I am not aware that my points are copied by many or any, but could easily see how many would reach the same conclusions. Probably the greatest aid Ukraine could obtain at this time would be the appearance of a General Robert E. Lee knowing when it is time to lead his army to Appomattox.
Russia has adopted a Grant-like posture of continual engagement. Challenged at logistics and manpower, the Confederacy fell under the pressure. The Ukrainian lines are straining under the Russian pressure.
If Ukraine can hold on for a while longer and receive bigger and better weaons, it will only result in Russia upping its game. Russia has more of everything, including manpower, and nothing will change that. The West simply does not produce equipment of the type and quantities desired by Ukraine.
My comments on the Russian economy came directly from Voice of America (VOA) and the Washington Post, not particularly known as pro-Russian sources.