• Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder what the comparative “costs” are for each side. If the west is only wagering Ukrainian lives, and its older military surplus, then it could end up being more of a drain on Russia (in lives and military expenditure) than on western governments.

    • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Russia’s armed forces are now bigger, better armed and more experienced than when the conflict started. Its military industries are in high gear and its civilian economy has actually been helped by the sanctions to start producing more domestically rather than relying on western imports. Unemployment is at an all time low in Russia.

      Meanwhile most of the West is entering into a long term recession. It has been largely unable to ramp up military production despite the political promises to do so, and it is running out of surplus to send. The US is already looking for a way to extricate itself out of this trap so that they can focus on other more important fronts, but i’m not sure that they can.

      They would like to shift the whole thing onto the Europeans but even some of their most loyal lackeys in Europe seem reticent to continue supporting Ukraine if the US pulls out. And i see no way to make it politically feasible to simply cease all support for Ukraine, that would be an even more humiliating defeat than their pullout from Afghanistan.

      For now they are stuck with Ukraine. And the conflict in the Middle East is also going very badly for them. Their empire has never been more overextended and more vulnerable than it is now.