Reply To: Russian Tensions
Truescotsman:
You don’t see it as a victory because you don’t understand the nature of the conflict. Russia’s main goal is demilitarization. To do this one does not need to take ground one needs to kill the enemy and destroy his ability to further make war. This Russia is doing with ruthless efficiency. Ukraine has lost 6,500 KIAs just this January, mostly in Bhakmut.
Out of an army half a million strong, that’s a spit in the Ocean: again, look at the precedents, the Iran Iraq War, the Korean War: humans are sadly replaceable.
Yes, the precedents of prolonged attritional trench war is that one side will break in the rear, after horrific carnage, but that might not come soon. And, don’t forget, Kyiv is basically pawning its future here into economic dependence on Europe, it will get the logistical supplies it needs not to break like that.
If it’s a fair fight then both sides weary. This is not a fair fight.
There are still costs, even if unevenly distributed. Russia has, on paper, far more military resources, but it has to keep a lot in reserve to protect it’s own territory. It’s supply lines are in a hostile environment, and need to be protected.
Actually it could with a thrust from Belorus down along the Polish border. But Russia seems happy enough to allow NATO to continue demilitarizing itself by sending its war material to be reduced to molten slag.
Materiel can be replaced, simple destruction is inefficient, NATO has deeper pockets than Moscow.
Cutting the Polish border would also need to cut the Romanian and Moldovan borders: which would be come with severe supply line problems, and would just open the Russians to be being bled by guerrilla warfare.
I’ll just note that Bakhmut has not yet fallen: a town with about the population of Redcar (not a huge city) has taken this long to fall…