You're viewing part of a thread.
If the war kicked off because of NATO encirclement, and there are now two more NATO members than before the war... What's the end goal?
Nuke new york. Imagine that. Less yanks. World peace is finally in reach.
Regardless of morals, Ukraine is being demillitarized, and Donetsk and Luhansk are being folded into Russian territory. These are 2 explicit goals of Russia's that are hard to deny at this point. What matters more for Russia isn't necessarily the total number of NATO countries, but their relative proximity and millitary power. Much of NATO is de-industrialized and doesn't actually have much of a long-standing fighting force except the US. Russia is now less encircled than before, but the NATO-aligned and non-NATO aligned countries are at a higher split than before.
Ukraine is being demillitarized
I guess they're trying, but at what cost and to what end? If the idea is that they're afraid NATO is going to encircle and then invade them, they kind of overplayed their hand. Everyone now factually knows Russia is a paper tiger, and they've squandered a significant portion of their Soviet stockpiles and hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded for a few km of land. If NATO wanted to invade, they could get to Moscow in no time. I assume putin is keeping his best reserves near Moscow, but we've seen from the kursk offensive that russian capabilities behind the front lines are severely lacking.
Also the bit about reducing NATO military power.. The US made bank selling HIMARS to Russia's neighbors after seeing how effective they were. They're stockpiling to protect against Russia.
That's not really materially accurate. Russia is an industrialized country and has been producing vast amounts of missiles and weaponry, and moreover the reveal of an ICBM with a conventional warhead, Oreshnik, fundamentally changes the landscape of war until another country reveals they have even 1 of them. You cannot defend against that, and the devastation is similar to that of a tactical nuke without triggering MAD. HIMARS can't defend against such a weapon, and Russia has the industrial capacity to manufacture more.
Russia can't really be considered a paper tiger here, they are the only ones that can afford a war of attrition and bleed NATO dry, and many of the weapons sent by the US are damaged, old, or otherwise unusable, something Zelensky has repeatedly complained about. It will be interesting to analyze after the war is complete, where Ukraine went wrong and what they should have done, etc.
The missile is just more saber rattling until it actually does something. It's kind of pointless to use it against Ukraine. They have plenty of other missiles that will reach, even a hypersonic one, though that hasn't turned the tide much. And if they reach out and touch anyone else, it'll spark retaliation and maybe even a broader conflict.
But I was specifically referring to vehicles, ammo, and tactics. Russia has been fielding truly ancient Soviet stock. T-90s are rare. I don't know if they even have T-14s on the front anymore. They're losing vehicles faster than they can make new ones. It's not a huge issue because of the massive Soviet stock, but they're still fielding inferior vehicles and depleting stockpiles.
Ammo-wise, they've leaned very heavily on north Korea for the past year at least. And as for tactics? Basically none. A huge portion of the soldiers are poorly trained, and basically sent forward in meat waves. Ukraine won't try to hold indefensible locations, so it does work to push them back slowly.
Russia can't really be considered a paper tiger here
Specifically, I mean in conventional warfare. Not nukes.
We're about 3 years into a 3 day SMO. For all of the previously mentioned reasons, Russia could not go toe to toe with any other major power, especially elsewhere. Their logistics are suffering and the front line is next door. Getting counter-invaded was a massive embarrassment as well. Additionally, they lost the proxy war in Syria, either due to pulling resources or Ukrainian involvement with the rebels.
Can't say I agree with your analysis, but time will tell.