[Goose]

Agree entirely, but you have to be willing to spend the necessary money to pay for expensive hardware.  I think we are already in a rob Peter to pay Paul mode and that may only get worse.  There are many demands on a nations funds and if you are unwilling to do what has to be done to raise the necessary funds to cover all the demands, you end up where we are today. A little for this and a little for that, but no where near enough for everything.  Considering current conditions, this isn't going to change until 9/11 2 happens.

Unfortunately the next "9/11" event may not be from a terrorist group with no strategic weapons. It may be from a nation-state that has plenty of such weapons. Unlike even WW II building modern weapons is slow. Ford Motor could switch from building cars to building aircraft in WW II because the technology for both items was similar. They were both relatively simple metal fabrication problems with relatively few drawings required. There is little similarity between an F-35 and even modern automobiles. The drawing package is immense and can only be executed by special machines. Since the mid 1980s the US has assumed all wars will be "Come as you are" because there won't be time to build a lot of hardware during said war. If we start out with a force that is too small and not adequately equipped attrition will just make the situation worse, not better. In WW II the US had years to build up its forces and weapons. Neither Japan nor Germany was going to win the war outright in the next few years. In the "next war" we may have no time at all. It will be "game on" from day 1. Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

Russia taking of immense proportions losses but still winning slowly since they can get away with a WW I version of warfare.  If Ukraine had  say 100 F35's and 100 F22s there would probably be few if any functional radars near Ukraine and their manufacturing centers would be under constant attack from stand off missals.

Ukraine doesn't need the F-22s. The air threat just isn't serious enough to require it. Indeed if Ukraine had even 35 F-35s the DEAD mission could be executed guaranteeing at least local air supremacy for Ukrainian fourth generation strike aircraft (if they had any). Unfortunately the ability to strike manufacturing centers with stand-off missiles is not a war-winner as Russia is finding out the hard way in Ukraine. It is problematic for Ukraine but not catastrophic. They fight on.

The F-35 is not a strategic weapon. Its maximum payload while "stealthy" is 5700 lbs. Most US long range missiles do not fit in the F-35 internal weapons bay. The purpose of the F-35 is tactical. It is meant to destroy the ability of the opponents ground forces to resist attack. It does this by precision strikes on logistics nodes, transportation and C3 centers. It can also destroy weapons concentrations and perform DEAD/SEAD. This is possible (at least according to the "book") by using precision weapons to destroy targets that are essential to the enemy's military operations. The Ukrainian army can then successfully break through the fatally weakened Russian forces and inflict a debilitating defeat on Russia that threatens its political existence. 

Unfortunately, Ukraine isn't resourced to conduct such a breakthrough. In their wildest dreams they aren't going to threaten to occupy Russia. The best they can hope for is to drive Russia out of Ukraine and then obtain a political solution. If Russia decides to keep fighting there is nothing Ukraine can do about it. This is the conundrum of this war. No matter how well Ukraine fights, this war ends only when Russia "wins", cannot continue because of economic collapse, or will not continue because of political unrest and/or an outbreak of common sense.

The only thing that makes Russia really dangerous are their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  And no one even knows if they still work properly. 
Russia has yet to pay the piper for its attack on Ukraine, but the bill is coming due soon and the piper will have to be paid.

You can be sure that enough of them "work properly" to make doing the experiment too costly to even contemplate. The RVSN RF has always been a breed apart, even back in Soviet times. Unlike the rest of the military they have their own raison d'etre that is independent of the government. They have a "mission" and they take their "responsibilities to the nation" very seriously.

Russia indeed is going to have lots of unavoidable problems due to this war. Some are economic, some are political, and some are demographic. The demographic ones are far enough in the future they probably won't effect the outcome of this war. The political ones could, but Putin can control a lot of those by his own policies and actions for a "significant" length of time. So far, so good. He can also address the economic ones, but there his options are limited. Economics is what it is. Putin can't dictate to the world. However as Venezuela keeps proving a lot of economic pain doesn't necessarily force a change in policy. Let's hope that economics gets Putin before one of the myriad of  issues "gets" Ukraine. Normally one only pays the piper after the the funeral.

If the West is willing to step up and keep Ukraine in the game for another year, Russia could well lose.  But then Ukraine would have to be willing to suffer through another year of significant losses.  The jury is out as to how long Russia can continue to pay the war bill.  There are conflicting viewpoints. But as long as Russia can continue to fight the war using only manpower and artillery, it may well last a while.

IMO true except I would modify it to say as long as Russia can continue to fight. The character of the war may change. Russia may decide to go on defense for awhile once they take all of Donbas. Russia may just sit back and bombard Ukraine enough to prevent them recovering at all economically. Right now, Russia dictates the battle.

[Goose]

Agree entirely, but you have to be willing to spend the necessary money to pay for expensive hardware.  I think we are already in a rob Peter to pay Paul mode and that may only get worse.  There are many demands on a nations funds and if you are unwilling to do what has to be done to raise the necessary funds to cover all the demands, you end up where we are today. A little for this and a little for that, but no where near enough for everything.  Considering current conditions, this isn't going to change until 9/11 2 happens.

Unfortunately the next "9/11" event may not be from a terrorist group with no strategic weapons. It may be from a nation-state that has plenty of such weapons. Unlike even WW II building modern weapons is slow. Ford Motor could switch from building cars to building aircraft in WW II because the technology for both items was similar. They were both relatively simple metal fabrication problems with relatively few drawings required. There is little similarity between an F-35 and even modern automobiles. The drawing package is immense and can only be executed by special machines. Since the mid 1980s the US has assumed all wars will be "Come as you are" because there won't be time to build a lot of hardware during said war. If we start out with a force that is too small and not adequately equipped attrition will just make the situation worse, not better. In WW II the US had years to build up its forces and weapons. Neither Japan nor Germany was going to win the war outright in the next few years. In the "next war" we may have no time at all. It will be "game on" from day 1. Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

Russia taking of immense proportions losses but still winning slowly since they can get away with a WW I version of warfare.  If Ukraine had  say 100 F35's and 100 F22s there would probably be few if any functional radars near Ukraine and their manufacturing centers would be under constant attack from stand off missals.

Ukraine doesn't need the F-22s. The air threat just isn't serious enough to require it. Indeed if Ukraine had even 35 F-35s the DEAD mission could be executed guaranteeing at least local air supremacy for Ukrainian fourth generation strike aircraft (if they had any). Unfortunately the ability to strike manufacturing centers with stand-off missiles is not a war-winner as Russia is finding out the hard way in Ukraine. It is problematic for Ukraine but not catastrophic. They fight on.

The F-35 is not a strategic weapon. Its maximum payload while "stealthy" is 5700 lbs. Most US long range missiles do not fit in the F-35 internal weapons bay. The purpose of the F-35 is tactical. It is meant to destroy the ability of the opponents ground forces to resist attack. It does this by precision strikes on logistics nodes, transportation and C3 centers. It can also destroy weapons concentrations and perform DEAD/SEAD. This is possible (at least according to the "book") by using precision weapons to destroy targets that are essential to the enemy's military operations. The Ukrainian army can then successfully break through the fatally weakened Russian forces and inflict a debilitating defeat on Russia that threatens its political existence. 

Unfortunately, Ukraine isn't resourced to conduct such a breakthrough. In their wildest dreams they aren't going to threaten to occupy Russia. The best they can hope for is to drive Russia out of Ukraine and then obtain a political solution. If Russia decides to keep fighting there is nothing Ukraine can do about it. This is the conundrum of this war. No matter how well Ukraine fights, this war ends only when Russia "wins", cannot continue because of economic collapse, or will not continue because of political unrest and/or an outbreak of common sense.

The only thing that makes Russia really dangerous are their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  And no one even knows if they still work properly. 
Russia has yet to pay the piper for its attack on Ukraine, but the bill is coming due soon and the piper will have to be paid.

You can be sure that enough of them "work properly" to make doing the experiment too costly to even contemplate. The RVSN RF has always been a breed apart, even back in Soviet times. Unlike the rest of the military they have their own raison d'etre that is independent of the government. They have a "mission" and they take their "responsibilities to the nation" very seriously.

Russia indeed is going to have lots of unavoidable problems due to this war. Some are economic, some are political, and some are demographic. The demographic ones are far enough in the future they probably won't effect the outcome of this war. The political ones could, but Putin can control a lot of those by his own policies and actions for a "significant" length of time. So far, so good. He can also address the economic ones, but there his options are limited. Economics is what it is. Putin can't dictate to the world. However as Venezuela keeps proving a lot of economic pain doesn't necessarily force a change in policy. Let's hope that economics gets Putin before one of the myriad of  issues "gets" Ukraine. Normally one only pays the piper after the the funeral.

If the West is willing to step up and keep Ukraine in the game for another year, Russia could well lose.  But then Ukraine would have to be willing to suffer through another year of significant losses.  The jury is out as to how long Russia can continue to pay the war bill.  There are conflicting viewpoints. But as long as Russia can continue to fight the war using only manpower and artillery, it may well last a while.

IMO true except I would modify it to say as long as Russia can continue to fight. The character of the war may change. Russia may decide to go on defense for awhile once they take all of Donbas. Russia may just sit back and bombard Ukraine enough to prevent them recovering at all economically. Right now, Russia dictates the battle.