This is probably more like “on paper they can”. After a year, there will be growing discontent and desertions up and down the ranks.
IMO, the west should pay – whatever the price.
[deleted]
Lithuania is definitely going to be in the know on this more so than many other countries. They are next on the buffet if Ukraine falls. So trust this assessment.
Whether the western world can keep Ukraine supplied and fighting for that long is another story. Hope so but don’t believe so.
Til it runs out of men?
And then what? Nobody wants this to continue for that long.
Obviously if China starts to supply Russia then that’s a different story.
Two more years with worsening quality and at the same time Ukraine getting better gear and training = at least a million dead Russian soldiers.
Not if Ukraine gets proper weapons supplies.
I doubt the “at current intensity”. Prigozhin and the russian army are currently both blaming each other that they get prefered treatment on ammunition supply, which means that both don’t receive enough. And that is with news that they are working extra at the factories. Every day Oryx adds around 10 new tank losses to the list, even with russias gigantic reserves that is not sustainable for years. Mobilized soldiers will not fight for 3 years straight and new waves of mobilization are unlikely. The conflict will go on but the intensity will go down.
It would be best to drag it on, because it would likely mean the collapse of Russia, and if we propped up the.splinter states and made them pro west, we could isolate and eventually destroy China, and keep the.world unipolar and peaceful.
That’s all well and good, but do we really want to wait around for another two years and have war in Europe?
I hope for the sake of Russian and Ukrainian people we don’t have another two years of this.
Lol and What would be the gain?
Brace yourself for jihadi insurgency as historically islamic and turkic regions of that world will try to unite to fight (ironically to westerners) against Moscow and the ‘west.’ i.e. Chechnya, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, etc. Dostoevsky incessantly pondered about pan-islamism and turanism.
Two more years of no significant gains? Can they handle a counter offensive like that?
150,000 dead in 1 year, so 450,000 dead in 3 years at the current rate. That isn’t even taking into account the fact the death rate is getting worse for Russians, surely they can’t keep this up until 500,000 dead.
17 comments
I’m not sure their economy will support this
This is probably more like “on paper they can”. After a year, there will be growing discontent and desertions up and down the ranks.
IMO, the west should pay – whatever the price.
[deleted]
Lithuania is definitely going to be in the know on this more so than many other countries. They are next on the buffet if Ukraine falls. So trust this assessment.
Whether the western world can keep Ukraine supplied and fighting for that long is another story. Hope so but don’t believe so.
Til it runs out of men?
And then what? Nobody wants this to continue for that long.
They’re running out of weapons, men, vehicles, and ammo. I doubt they can last until the end of the year at this intensity let alone two more years. We’ve already heard stories about soldiers attacking with just shovels, and they decided this [monstrosity](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/04/desperate-russian-forces-are-adding-80-year-old-naval-guns-to-70-year-old-armored-tractors/) was a good idea.
Obviously if China starts to supply Russia then that’s a different story.
Two more years with worsening quality and at the same time Ukraine getting better gear and training = at least a million dead Russian soldiers.
Not if Ukraine gets proper weapons supplies.
I doubt the “at current intensity”. Prigozhin and the russian army are currently both blaming each other that they get prefered treatment on ammunition supply, which means that both don’t receive enough. And that is with news that they are working extra at the factories. Every day Oryx adds around 10 new tank losses to the list, even with russias gigantic reserves that is not sustainable for years. Mobilized soldiers will not fight for 3 years straight and new waves of mobilization are unlikely. The conflict will go on but the intensity will go down.
It would be best to drag it on, because it would likely mean the collapse of Russia, and if we propped up the.splinter states and made them pro west, we could isolate and eventually destroy China, and keep the.world unipolar and peaceful.
That’s all well and good, but do we really want to wait around for another two years and have war in Europe?
I hope for the sake of Russian and Ukrainian people we don’t have another two years of this.
Lol and What would be the gain?
Brace yourself for jihadi insurgency as historically islamic and turkic regions of that world will try to unite to fight (ironically to westerners) against Moscow and the ‘west.’ i.e. Chechnya, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, etc. Dostoevsky incessantly pondered about pan-islamism and turanism.
Two more years of no significant gains? Can they handle a counter offensive like that?
150,000 dead in 1 year, so 450,000 dead in 3 years at the current rate. That isn’t even taking into account the fact the death rate is getting worse for Russians, surely they can’t keep this up until 500,000 dead.