More like the worse the maths is this time the harder it'll be for hawks to sell adventures in future, which matters in a situation where bullying/salami slicing land off neighbours has been a habitual part of Russian foreign policy for decades. War happens eventually, but you can stall it, and sometimes swerve it.
You think Larry is a stupid man for thinking the Ukrainians spring offensive is a damp squib?just a very stupid man
Tbh I think you're very optimistic about Russian opportunities for rearmament, given the way they're cut off from getting their hands on the really good microchips. After Vietnam it was a long long time before the US military did anything major and the Russian army will take at least as long to ready itself for a future war, especially as they weren't ready for the war they're in. The upper echelons of the army will change after so many senior officers were killed but the main question is if they trust junior officers to have latitude in carrying on their orders or if the orders must be carried out to the letter and micromanaged.
Maybe, but one thing Russia has over everywhere else is raw materials. They may struggle with the really top end stuff but dumb ordnance? They can keep that up all year.
Compared to most actions which are described as a military offensive?
Lead by propaganda rather than leading.
Ah "most actions," righto. Anyone got an answer which isn't so vague as to be meaningless?
Yes, lacking any kind of intellectual interrogation of the realities of what's actually going on on the front lines, the relative strengths of both forces, and the strategy required to overcome prepared defences.
Do you want me to name famous offensive actions to compare to? Would that help you?
As can the Americans. We'll see much more dumb ordnance used in this war and doubtless in 2025
Do you have all of that?
You mean the tactics to overcome prepared defences. Strategy is the end goal, tactics is how you get there.
No, because they're non-comparable circumstances. My point here being that neither you nor Larry have the faintest idea what the evaluated version of "success" was to start with, because you, like the rest of us, have no particular insight into the forces and difficulties involved or what the military thinking was/is, and are talking as though what's happened has amounted to far less than promised, which it hasn't because they promised very little.
And you have all of that?
I've read and understood the analyses of those that do, rather than the 'the offensive is a failure' crowd who seem to be judging it based on pure vibes.
No, which is why I'm not declaring it a success or a damp squib. I may be an arrogant wee twat but I'm not quite silly enough to pretend I can call the position on an in-progress, opaque offensive thousands of miles away, interpreted through a media lens.
Success=taking territory. The media propaganda produces constant graphics of which territory is controlledbywho. So far, Ukraine seems to have gained virtually zero.
Interesting read. It goes over most of the available info but interprets it in a pro Ukrainian rather optimistic way. The assertion Russia can only produce 200 tanks a year seemed speculative.
I think the USA only makes 60 tomahawk a year, so it's imo certainly possible
Missiles? Edited to add I think it was the precision of the estimate that seemed optimistic.
I thought, should I take Frank off of ignore just this once? Could they have a contribution worth reading?
Is this a new one for the bingo card?
