However, Russia itself built many of its strategic and operational concepts around short war assumptions. Though it has demonstrated the ability to expend resources at scale so far, the question of whether Russia has all the underpinnings of a state capable of continuing to fight a long war deserves further examination

Russia probably benefits from having stockpiles capable of sustaining combat operations for several years, as well as the capacity to manufacture more at scale. Other capabilities such as tanks and armoured fighting vehicles will, however, need to be regenerated, given the levels of attrition Russia is taking. A key consideration here will be how Russia’s major manufacturers function in the absence of Western components – which, notably, they have failed to substitute in the last decade. After the post-2014 sanctions on defence exports, Russia was able to achieve effective substitution of Western goods in seven out of 127 categories of equipment identified as priorities for import substitution.

It concludes with

To be sure, Russia can cut corners – by excluding the need for refresher courses for militarily experienced individuals, for example. Moreover, its enormous stockpiles in areas like artillery shells mean its military machine will not grind to a halt any time soon. Its military will, however, undergo a progressive devolution in qualitative terms should this option be chosen. Alternatively, Russia could opt to replace lost capabilities with qualitatively comparable materiel and personnel for a second offensive – and will probably succeed in some categories. It will not, however, be able to replace the capacity it is shedding at scale. Given a pause, it can potentially generate enough combat capability to, in conjunction with its remaining pre-war capabilities, enable a subsequent offensive. Its ability to do this depends on whether the Russian system is given the breathing space to conserve existing resources, given its limited ability to replace human and material assets at scale.

So basically Russia needs a pause to be able to withstand this. But given that NATO funding doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon, how much will that really help? The source you posted pointed out Lockheed Martin could easily go from it's current production of 2,100 missiles a year to 4,000 in a couple years

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If you look at the packages NATO has been sending each new package is smaller than the last. This is true both for weapons and financial aid. Meanwhile, Europe is now crashing economically and will not have enough energy to last the winter. European steel mills are shutting down already. Without energy from Russia it's not possible for Europe to ramp up weapons production. Europe is also starting to see civil unrest in many countries, this will only grow as people realize the enormity of the economic disaster they've been driven into.

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin ramping up production two years in the future will make no impact on this war. Finally, there is a problem with logistics for NATO. Russia can deliver supplies easily via rail while supplies from US have to come from across the ocean. Overall, this does not paint a promising picture for NATO.