What a shock! Russia is slowly grinding up Ukraine's resources and army, which should surprise exactly nobody with two neurons to rub together.
This isn't an unexpected twist either. Russia is almost five times the size of Ukraine by population, and 10 times the size by GDP. And in a war in which both sides are using roughly the same tactics and strategy, the larger country will have the advantage.
The West is busily sending its own stocks of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, but the results are resoundingly disappointing. And that shouldn't be a surprise. The Ukrainian army is by now mostly conscripts, and advanced weaponry wielded by a barely-trained army may provide a modest advantage, but not a resounding one.
Russia makes substantial gains in Ukraines east
October of 2024 was the most militarily successful month for Russia since July of 2022. After months of sustained pressure, and mostly stagnant front lines, Russian troops have broken through and made significant gains in the Donbas region of Ukraine. According to the New York Times, Russian forces have secured more than 160 square miles there, and are capturing strategic towns along the way.
It seems as though the next goal for Russians in the Donbas is to take the strategic rail town, Pokrovsk, which would seriously inhibit Ukraine�s ability to resupply its forces in the region. Encirclement of this strategic city is likely as Ukraine has likely lost Selydove this week, a city which is only about 20 miles south of Pokrovsk.
Sadly, the West is quite happy to fight to the last Ukrainian soldier, even when the reality is that Russia will probably hold some of Ukraine regardless of future battles. Absent NATO troops and WWIII, is there any rational scenario that ends with a Russian withdrawal to the status quo ante bellum?
One of the many flaws in American and Western foreign policy is the inability to understand the other side. The military theorist Liddell Hart wrote about understanding "the other side of the hill," which is nothing more than what and why the other side is thinking.
The Russian psyche is not complicated. Why does the West not understand that an expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia is a direct challenge to the Russian bear? Fomenting political revolution in a country on Russia's border is a threat in the minds of the Russian political class and, probably, in the minds of its people. This goes back to at least 2008, when George Bush offered NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia. The Obama administration had a hand in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution that got rid of Victor Yanukovych in favor of a more western oriented president.
How would America respond if Russia did the same thing in Mexico?
This is not an argument in support of Putin and his thuggish behavior and policies, but it is a recognition that in the absence of a clear strategic necessity for America, perhaps the best policy would be, "a pox on both their houses!"