If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already. Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence since the beginning, which is what led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare.
Leaving the moral dimension aside, this entire war has been basically two JV teams going at it since the beginning. NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military based on their performance so far, and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war.
> NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military
Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes.
> and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war.
It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East.
War with Russia wouldn't be the same as battle of Timbuktu.
> Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes.
Having served in the US military for 20+ years active and reserve, the level of synchronization and coordination NATO can bring to the fight dwarfs what Russia and Ukraine have been able to achieve. The situation has degenerated into what it is because neither side could effectively coordinate action at scale, or integrate air, land, and naval power tightly. The West can. I've seen it.
> It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East.
You don't seem to understand the scenarios the US trains to. First off, there is so, so much more to counterinsurgency than just "bombing people" that it's a whole nother post. And frankly if someone describes military action as just "bombing people," it's a tell they're not speaking from a position of expertise on the issue. The US has maintained the ability to fight a major theater war since 2003; it just hasn't had to exercise it. There is a reason that in conventional combat, the US and allied militaries stomped the Iraqi military flat twice in 15 years. The failures afterward were largely at the political and strategic level from lack of clear direction or unrealistic objectives from the civilian leadership.
There is one military that could credibly challenge the US and NATO allies today, and it's not Russia, it's China.
>If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already.
They're invading the largest country in Europe armed by a military bloc constituting 60% of world military spending. Which part of that screamed quick to you?
>Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence
They somehow managed to achieve a body bag exchange ratio of 44:1 and an extreme busification crisis in Ukraine with a volunteer force.
It's a more impressive showing than Iraq.
>led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare.
Putin announced the strategy of attritional warfare in March 2022 after the land bridge was secured, so one could hardly argue that this wasnt the plan.
Ukraine has done a good job of playing into their hands by trying to cling on to land long past the point where it becomes defensible and getting enveloped in cauldron after cauldron.
Hence the issue where Ukrainian civilians are now more afraid of their own government's roving kidnapping gangs than living under Moscow's rule.
That part is probably going to be the real kicker in the end.
The amount of total financial support provided to Ukraine is lower than that which Russia has earned from the same bloc. And military support is the smaller fraction of this total. So, the support has been important but without Ukraine deciding to resist Russia vehemently, the Donbass would have long been conquered.
I do agree with your criticism that in certain places, such as Bakhmut or Avdiivka, Ukraine has lost many men needlessly when in an indefensible position. Saying that, Russia is making at best incremental gains for huge casualties. They certainly aren't going to conquer the rest of Donbass by this year or even by the 4th anniversary.
>The amount of total financial support provided to Ukraine is lower than that which Russia has earned from the same bloc.
The amount of aid sent during the war totaled up to about $300 billion, which is roughly equal to the Russian military budget for the same period.
Thats not counting all of the "soon to be expired" stuff they handed over in 2022/2023, declaring it was worth $0 because it would have been disposed of.
>Saying that, Russia is making at best incremental gains for huge casualties.
For every body bag they get back theyve recently been handing over 44.
Territorial gains are only relevant for them right now insofar as it serves their overriding goal of attrition.
>They certainly aren't going to conquer the rest of Donbass by this year or even by the 4th anniversary.
If it serves the overall goal of attrition im sure theyd be happy to drag it out beyond February. Theyre not on a deadline.
The problem is that the more the Ukrainian army gets hollowed out by attrition now, the faster and more complete the eventual collapse will be.
> Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate. That takes Russia off the table as a near peer to the U.S.
Ukraine, with currently most capable and experienced military in Europe, supported by western countries, is losing. Slowly and while making Russia pay, but losing nonetheless. And if you consider demographics, it kinda lost already. Most people that escaped west won't get back, and many men that were forced to stay will leave soon after they will be allowed to.
For last few decades US victories were even less clear and made against countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
>He’s not winning on the timelines his military brass originally predicted.
Untrue. I remember them being asked for a deadline in a press conference in March 2022 and they said (verbatim) "it will take as long as it takes". Theyve not deviated from that position either, because Clausewitz.
That "3 days to kiev" thing was General Mark Milley's prediction to congress, which was later morphed by western propaganda into "Putin's goal" and is now presumed by the terminally naive to have been the overriding goal.
>Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate
If it were stalemate the body bag exchange ratios would probably be a little lower than 44:1 and the TCC probably wouldnt be kidnapping quite so many men out doing a grocery run.
To be fair, I remember reading about a Russian state media accidentally posting an article written in advance for the capture of Kyiv, right around the time the war started. That was pretty much the assumption in the piece.
If it's the article im thinking of it proclaimed that all of Ukraine and all of Belarus were now part of a glorious "greater" Russia.
I think if they really wanted the latter they could have made it happen by now.
The leadership apparently werent saying anything at all to anyone in the first two weeks or so for opsec reasons, and that apparently led some of the state media propagandists to get a bit creative.
Leaving the moral dimension aside, this entire war has been basically two JV teams going at it since the beginning. NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military based on their performance so far, and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war.