all 4 comments

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They don't give a shit about victory. They just want to sell expensive things that explode and have to be replaced endlessly by still more expensive things that explode.

[–]chakokat[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is true except it becomes harder to sell very, very expensive ‘things' that get exploded by superior yet less expensive Russian ‘things'.

The US can strong-arm some to purchase it’s very, very expensive yet useless weapons systems BUT there are nations who are concerned about getting the best bang for their buck ( pun intended ) who will think twice about enriching Raytheon at their own expense.

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And that's why it's always the case that a motivated army of barefoot guys with ak47s can drive out US forces from their lands, given a long enough timeline.

[–]chakokat[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Russians have adapted to all Western arms. Not to acknowledge the situation today is toying with the fate of a nation

The stark failure of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive, which Kyiv billed as the one-two punch that can knock Russia out of the war, has led proponents of maximalist war aims in Ukraine to revise their timetable for victory.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), according to this emerging consensus, can fend off ongoing Russian attacks and replenish their capacity for renewed offensives in 2025 with sustained Western support. Key to these plans is a two-fold assessment of both sides’ strike capabilities.

This view argues that Ukraine, if supplied with enough “game-changing” medium and long-range missiles, can successfully degrade Russian logistics and command and control (C2) nodes and make large swathes of occupied territories — including Crimea — untenable for Russian forces. Such perspectives are complemented and often accompanied by the parallel observation that Russian forces are running critically low on key munitions and thus lack the ability to apply sustained long-term pressure on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Both approaches, which invite Western policymakers to double down on Ukraine’s maximalist war aims in hopes that something approximating a total victory can yet be secured with enough funding and persistence, are deeply flawed and risk putting Kyiv and its Western partners in an even more precarious military position over the coming year.