The only information that seems reliable are the territorial gains and losses that are seen on the many detailed public maps out there. When most of them coincide on a change I take it as real. Right now Ukrainians are falling back across the entire front line.
From what I can see, there has been almost no shift in territory in either direction over the past couple of months outside the salient of Avdiivka. You're overstating the case more than a little bit here.
Also there are many reports that Russia's military industrial base has expanded output significantly (to the point NATO can't keep up as is)
More "my propaganda is better than your propaganda"? The reports you see about Russia's expanded military capacity come from Russia, directly or indirectly. Maybe some of it is even true. Russia may well be producing a lot of stuff, but they're not replacing their equipment losses, especially the modern stuff. Russia has not fielded 60+ year old tanks because they've got so many brand new ones running out of their ears.
In case you've forgotten, this is Russia. Against Ukraine. Simply the fact that we're two years into this is shocking.
... and the military itself having gone through their baptism of fire is probably more solid now than it was at the beginning of the invasion ...
This contains a grain of truth and a ton of falsehood. Yes, I bet the surviving troops are significantly more combat hardened than the troops that started the invasion. Taken as a whole, I do no think the Russian military has been strengthened by two years of Ukrainian conflict.
Russia "running out of troops" may turn out to be the same as "Russia is running out of artillery shells", that didn't pan out did it?
I think the significant point is whether or not Russia has run out of troops or artillery shells, but that in two years all the Russian troops and artillery shells they could muster has been insufficient to overcome a single, much smaller, neighboring country.
The western experts mocked or discounted the Russians for their propensity to wage war of attrition.
Clearly we read different sources as I don't recall this. Don't get me wrong, the experts have been wrong time and again. Initially, nearly everyone was predicting a quick win by Russia. This did not come to pass.
Obviously the better experts to listen to would be the Russian ones, who I'm sure have made no missteps regarding their assessments of this conflict.
As dogmush alluded, Western doctrine seems to be bloody the opposition up, degrade them, then leave the territory of conflict in a state of chaos. It sure doesn't look like winning in the traditional sense. You could call it the "How to get allies killed and lose influence doctrine".
Yes, I largely agree with dogmush's analysis.
I'm frankly ambivalent on the moral and strategic nature of the Ukraine war, however it is important to keep in mind that the alternative of having Ukraine as an ally is having Ukraine as a puppet of Russia. If your preferred strategy is to let Russia take over Ukraine either by political manipulation or military force, we're still losing influence and allies, aren't we?
Moral or not, if Russia conquers Ukraine now, they have bloodied each other and reduced each other's capabilities significantly. Russia has lost a huge number of men and equipment. You and Blakenzy can pretend that is positive for Russia if you want, but I don't buy it for a second.
Ukraine has lost a huge number of men and equipment. If Russia conquers them after this protracted, violent struggle then the end result is two opponents, both weaker than when they started.
