Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scorchpork t1_j29ntj8 wrote

Nonexistence of proof isn't proof of nonexistence. It is hard to parse out non-distorted reality. Most of the media and outlets we are exposed to are pro-ukraine. And it is going to highlight Ukrainian success and undersell any Russian success. Also, the number of loses doesn't necessarily equal the detriment of the lose. Imagine you were in a fight and it were 5 against 3: if both sides lose 2 people is it really 50/50?

Edit: I am pro Ukraine and want to see Russia get their ass kicked. I'm just also skeptical of possibly biased information fed to me.

5

Don11390 t1_j2biots wrote

Independent observers already have noted the incredible disparity between Russian and Ukrainian losses of men and materiel. The Russians have lost much more of both than the Ukrainians, that isn't remotely disputed by anyone who knows the truth.

What is true is that the Russians have a greater potential reserve of manpower and materiel. A Ukrainian unit losing, say, 10 men hurts the Ukrainians more than a Russian unit losing 10 men, if we oversimplify things. Same thing with aircraft and vehicles, armored and otherwise.

However, thanks to Western training and materiel support and Russian corruption and incompetence, AFU units are qualitatively superior to their Russian counterparts. As the Ukrainians themselves readily admit, they're lucky that the opposition is so goddamned stupid; this stupidity has largely neutralized any potential advantage that the Russians had. The Russians have also pissed away materiel that they can't afford to waste on civilian targets for very little gain; the Ukrainians are very much aware that this is a war for survival, and if rolling blackouts are the price to pay for survival they'll gladly pay it.

In any case, if you really want to read between the lines and see what way the wind is blowing, check on the status of Western support for Ukraine. The simple fact is that there wouldn't be this level of support if NATO didn't believe that the Ukrainians didn't have the ability to win.

6

scorchpork t1_j2bkjse wrote

Hard disagree. It is in our interest to have Ukraine fighting Russia, even if they lose. It isn't really hurting us to send the aid, and it is causing Russia to lose face, lose some men, and lose some equipment. We have been supplying Ukraine with defense materials for years (remember the whole 'quid pro quo' ordeal) nobody thought, prior to this year, that Ukraine stood a chance against Russia. And who are these "independent" observers? And as Schwarzkopf once said, "Quantity is a quality all its own"

−3

pro-crastibator t1_j2c00kz wrote

Yep, although both perspectives can be true at the same time. It’s in the US’s interest for Ukraine to survive as Russia’s punching bag for quite a while. Between sanctions and the gradual depletion of their military might, the longer this drags on, the worse it is for Russia (and better for the west). A swift and decisive victory for either side undermines this objective, although ultimately a victory for Ukraine against a heavily depleted Russia would be the best strategic outcome. This could take some time to play out.

2