Big Serge published another long analytical article full of interesting insights, but the most important is probably the following. In a war of attrition, it is not decided by who has the greater losses. It decides who is able to replace the losses. Russia is losing some people and some equipment in Ukraine, but is able to supply more of both than it is losing. So its strength is growing. NATO is also losing but is unable to replenish. Its strength is therefore declining. The gap is increasing. And as the difference in strength increases, so do the losses of the weaker one. And as the losses of the weaker one (who is unable to replace) increase, the difference in strength increases… and so on and so on.
You can see it on the battlefield. Even when Ukrainian NATO forces defended the Avdeyevka fortress as an absolute priority with everything they had, they held it for less than a week. Compare that to the months-long battles for other cities. And the gap is going to widen.
A normal thinking person would say it’s high time to sue for peace and negotiate at least somewhat decent terms before it collapses completely. However, we see the opposite. A barrage of arrogant platitudes, a determination to continue to lose in a landslide and unfulfilled promises of support for our party. As Big Serge demonstrates, those promises could only be meaningful if the basic conditions were met – the introduction of a war economy, the abolition of the green deal, the abolition of the production of manufactured goods, perhaps the introduction of rationing, the introduction of compulsory labour, etc. Then we would (hopefully) be able to churn out the tons of weapons needed. Not that we wouldn’t benefit from the West, but that’s exactly what our elites are incapable of.