Even the wisest cannot see all ends, but it looks like the war in Ukraine might be headed towards a strategic stalemate.
Apart from Javelin (and other ATGMs), various MANPADs, and HIMARS, the West has failed to supply Ukraine with the weaponry that could have had decisive effect on the battlefield in a timely fashion (MBTs, ATCMS, modern tactical fighters- the latter the UAF is
still waiting on). Instead, it's usually been a case of too little, too late. I wonder if the strategic situation today would be markedly more in favor of Ukraine if those weapon systems had been provided to the UAF much earlier.
Perhaps most alarming is the growing reluctance of USA and a couple of its NATO partners to continue supporting Ukraine materially. It appears that the flow of foreign-supplied weapons and ammunition to the UAF will soon slow.
By the same token, reports of Russia running out of essentially weaponry and ammunition appear to have been somewhat exaggerated. Yes, attrition has been heavy, but Russia still retains enough firepower to prevent a decisive Ukrainian victory on the ground. Furthermore, although recent Russian offensive operations have been very wasteful (see Bakhmut and Avdiivka), the Russian military is still strong enough to simultaneously defend its territorial gains while support continued attacks on multiple fronts.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-zelensky-says
I was surprised to read that the younger end of the current UAF draft age is 27, and that plans to lower it to 25 have been held up by the congress. IIRC, 27 was the average age of all US servicemen in WW2.
Meanwhile, Russia shows no signs of running out of military manpower (however poor the quality thereof). Unlike the Ukrainian gov't, Putin shows very little reluctance to resort to conscription to backfill the Russian army in Ukraine.
I really hope the West doesn't lose its nerve. Despite years of hardship and loss, Ukraine doesn't have the luxury of doing so.
Slava Ukraini!
-