Nothing about this bloodbath constitutes "winning". Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. The repeated failed harvests are threatening regional famine. We're looking at economic damage well into the tens of billions, assuming the war were to end tomorrow, and trillions going into the future. Military budgets across the continent are surging, as European leadership is whipped into an anti-Russo panic.
All this so two legions of mercenaries can play artillery tag across the Donbas basin? How is that winning?
People usually die in wars, not sure what you were expecting.
NATO literally does not have the ability to sustain this war. They could get there, if they were not neoliberal hellholes, but they are. Their military industries are build around making overpriced, wildly complex equipment that is sometimes good enough to kill insurgents and not nearly good enough for symmetrical warfare. No amount of money can fix this.
Russia, while also being something of a neolib trash fire, still has enough Soviet infrastructure to produce in months what takes years in other nations, and they will eventually win the conflict. Whether that will be just the Donbass or a full annexation or somewhere in between remains to be seen.
NATO literally does not have the ability to sustain this war.
The Western MIC can keep churning out hardware forever. There is no upper limit to the number of bombs we can manufacture, just the rate.
Russia, while also being something of a neolib trash fire, still has enough Soviet infrastructure to produce in months what takes years in other nations
It doesn't matter, when one bomb can level a city block. We're approaching a point at which there simply will not be anything left worth bombing.
Evidently not, they're winning by all metrics except perhaps "not winning fast enough"
Nothing about this bloodbath constitutes "winning". Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. The repeated failed harvests are threatening regional famine. We're looking at economic damage well into the tens of billions, assuming the war were to end tomorrow, and trillions going into the future. Military budgets across the continent are surging, as European leadership is whipped into an anti-Russo panic.
All this so two legions of mercenaries can play artillery tag across the Donbas basin? How is that winning?
People usually die in wars, not sure what you were expecting.
NATO literally does not have the ability to sustain this war. They could get there, if they were not neoliberal hellholes, but they are. Their military industries are build around making overpriced, wildly complex equipment that is sometimes good enough to kill insurgents and not nearly good enough for symmetrical warfare. No amount of money can fix this.
Russia, while also being something of a neolib trash fire, still has enough Soviet infrastructure to produce in months what takes years in other nations, and they will eventually win the conflict. Whether that will be just the Donbass or a full annexation or somewhere in between remains to be seen.
The Western MIC can keep churning out hardware forever. There is no upper limit to the number of bombs we can manufacture, just the rate.
It doesn't matter, when one bomb can level a city block. We're approaching a point at which there simply will not be anything left worth bombing.