Yeah, I'm rather to eastern-european for a amarican. And there's more guesswork in the article than there is any relation to logic. Guy states defense gives massive advantage, points out what decides of battlefields, and then glides over the issue of how that will favor Ukraine, particularly in winter, and trips out about what might have happened during some talks, but really he has nothing to back it up either way. Same as for the threefold increase in production. Or how Putin would go about mobilizing this massive population, even if he bothered to check the demography stats of it's age, or considered why they seem to be very afraid to do so.

I'd be quite interested in a well researched article on Russian chances of winning, but this is some conservative rag bullshit.

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You could watch some Perun videos on the subject. But THE question seems to be what victory looks like. Russia never was explicit on their objectives and what they would call a win.

Even if Ukraine would receive less help, Russia is not going to steamroll a country filled with people that know that losing to Russia means they will be starved, beaten and murdered.

I hope we don't have to find out, but ita going to be a long and bloody road regardless of outcome.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Russia never was explicit on their objectives and what they would call a win.

No but it is easy to guess from their actions.

They were pushing for Kyiv and expected an easy win. There objective was to dispose the current gov and put a puppet vassal in place.

Putin's dream was to recreate the Imperial Russian Empire of Catherine the Great. Taking Ukraine was supposed to be the first easy step.