Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Russian Analyst On Who Is Winning And Where the War Is Headed" video.

  1. Nice review and I agree, seeing the informed Russian perspective is helpful. I think NATO is OK with this dragging on. Now NATO has a renewed purpose, and most of Europe is re-arming and re-investing in the arms industry. Big money is flowing in, production facilities are upgraded, and new ones are built. Old equipment is shipped to Ukraine, new equipment is procured. Latest stuff gets actual field testing. War is big business. As long as the conflict is locked down to some fields in eastern Ukraine, it can continue for decades for all NATO military establishment really cares. Economically speaking, bleeding Russia dry is not really going to happen. But making Russia into North-West Korea is still on the table. So a few more years of this, and Europe will have disconnected itself fully from Russia. The idea of NATO countries attacking Russia, is just a result of Russian propaganda. It is one of the many stories that they tell themselves over there. While the victory condition for Ukraine is pretty clear, it is telling that nobody in Russia knows what their victory condition is.
    76
  2.  @scottbrower9052  - oh, really now. What is Germany doing then with all the billions of Euros? And Poland is. Sweden is. Norway is. Probably a lot more as well.
    8
  3.  @-Zevin-  True, and the reason NATO is having a hard time on the artillery front, is that NATO doctrine is relying on airpower, not artillery to deal pain at distance. Which may or may not be a good idea in a near-peer situation. In any case its not all about the shells, you need the cannons as well, and they get worn out. Finally, making artillery and dumb rounds for artillery isn't exactly cutting edge stuff. So any country can do it, in theory. But of course, no western arms manufacturer is going to invest in new factories and tools, if there isn't a long term supply contract. So I think the war in Ukraine is shaking things up in the West as well, as it now see the issues that counter-insurgency operations does not showcase.
    6
  4.  @-Zevin- - there is absolutely merit to this line of thinking. I guess 'stealth' technology might render it void though. So it is a gamble. If you are not able to deny the enemy air superiority, then your artillery is really done for, and you can basically just pack it up. If you are, then the enemy is going to have a hard time vs. your massive artillery. Of course another aspect here is that air-power can be moved around much easier than artillery. Which makes it much more useful for the US, that wants to project power on the other side of the globe, than when you just want to harass and invade your neighbors.
    4
  5.  @EvgeniyYakushev-m2u  - why would Europe turn into North Korea?
    1
  6.  @johnm7267  - they have a whole year to prepare. Germans will manage.
    1