What are the yardsticks for measuring the advance of the Rus in Ukr? It is not easy to get a clear picture especially because of the smoke-screens raised by the Occidental propaganda machinery. We see some anti-Rus handles on the TL swallowing all those claims& eagerly RTing them
On the other hand some Western & Rus handles are relatively realistic. The latter seem to admit that the going is not as good as they would have liked but it is hardly doom & gloom yet. They also seem to admit some of the effects of the classic navyonmatta style warfare waged by
the Occident on economic assets.But the key thing is a comparative measure for assessing the Rus military performance. We may infer from a variety of bits of evidence that a lot of the modern Rus hardware is inferior to the American cognates. The Americans also have the habit of
exaggerating their enemy's capacity so that their/their puppets victories might look bigger than they really are & their losses might look more the outcome of a tough struggle. However, we cannot really compare American wars or their combat style to the Rus. Americans have
preferred aerial bombathons since their assaults on Germany & Japan in WW2. They also have preferred to limit close fighting with "boots on the ground" in more recent times. They also seem highly averse to taking human cost. This makes the Americans v.good at smashing things but
poor at holding things unlike their parents from across the pond. However, Rus armies have traditionally been inferior in equipment & probably strategy to the preeminent Anglo ones, and also likely Germanic ones. They seem to be willing to take huge human costs but use their
strategic depth well to prevail with their primary capability as a land power to keep fighting & actually conquering land. Here too, all their expected weaknesses are seem to continue. However, they seem to have largely neutralized Ukr's air defenses but their unwillingness to
severely pound &smash their foes seems to be more of an outcome their interest in actually conquering the land for good as Karlin had predicted. Thus, they seem to be taking heavier losses than they would have otherwise incurred. Those who have closely studied the Nuland-Zelensky
with any eye of discernment will realized these embedded elements are like a parasitic fluke that doesn't really care for the good of the snail host (ordinary Ukr). They want maximal damage to be incurred by the commoners& tip Rus towards the destruction mode in the hope the West
will interceded & destroy the Rus. So far, apart from sending a few terrorists, the West is playing along by supplying the Ukr with intelligence & some hardware to tip the Rus in that direction. The Bacillus fermented soybean force did the same in places which they had failed to
conquer. Hence, the more the West & the Nuland-Zelensky axis who are drawing them into the war make the Ukr antagonistic towards their cousins, the more likely it is ruined -- essentially what Mearsheimer predicts. What I don't have a good feel for is what fraction of Ukr outside
the newly established republics really prefer to live in Pax Ruthenia. If than number is in a substantial majority then then the western designs would be blunted upon a Rus win, even if v.costly. If that is balanced or in the minority the ruin of Ukr is assured & the risk of bad
stuff happening on a more global level is likely. One could game about 6-7 scenarios with 1-2 of them being globally bad. If all had an equal outcome we have about 0.3 probability of something more globally bad happening. If the bad 1s are about 1/2 as likely (plausible) 0.15.
Loading suggestions...