There are some valid points in here, and we should never forget that wars and their outcome are unpredictable. Much of what he says about Russia can't be proven but as an analyst you have to take into account the possibility that the Russian situation could be even ...... worse than the optimistic Atlanticists such as Joshi think. It's not likely but possible. Then again, there's two factors which are decisive in this war, manpower and public support. Regarding the latter, Russia is very much a black box and...... don't get me started about the sanctions crowd who will finish this war as an embarrassment having been proven completely incompetent and delusional. But we just can't predict whether societal support for this war in Russia will hold and for how long.On the surface things look much worse in Ukraine but no one can define whether that society will be willing to make this effort for another four months or for four years. But the factor to measure we have is manpower. Ukraine had an impressive......manpower advantage at the beginning of this war, a major reason for the incredulity of many analysts regarding Russian intention for attack. But this advantage has been turned on its head, many Ukrainian reports from the front mention overwhelming Russian numbers.Claims like Joshi's here about a more or less equal artillery capacity are highly dubious as are the old canards of meat attacks or imaginary North Korean helpers. All these fairy tales, many started by the Economist whose reporting on this war has been......nothing more than an echo chamber of the deeply involved British state in this war, are invented for one reason only: to keep up public support for this war by pretending that there still is a good chance for Ukraine winning as Russians losses ......on the battlefield are much higher than Ukrainian ones by an order of magnitude. Check the Economist archive and you will see this claim again and again. Two thirds to three fourths of losses in high intensity war are inflicted by artillery.That's why the Ukrainians, the Economist and the Gady-Lee-Kofman front tourist group are claiming an artillery exception to the otherwise complete Western abandonment regarding arms supplies to Ukraine. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.Which means that it is very likely that Ukrainian loses are at least on the same level than Russian ones which makes Ukrainian victory unlikely in the long term. Sure, Russian will to fight and to take these losses might still weaken the longer the war lasts, .... this BTW the scenario Atlanticists are right now betting their houses on. But given the fact that Putin can continue the war by creating manpower through financial incentives doesn't seem to make this very likely. At the end of the day Joshi - who is..... and some kind of Korea solution implemented which could be sold as "saving Ukraine" despite ending the security and welfare of the whole continent for good apart from it's buccaneering and reckless peripheral islands. And sure, you can win wars without inflicting..... neither stupid nor incompetent (contrary to the Joshis in the German speaking world) but just unpleasant and probably desperate (and I have my history with that lad) - is aware of all this. And hopes that complete Russian victory can be prevented .....higher losses on the enemy, take Vietnam. But here we are back at one of Vance's best points, the spurious use of weaponized history by these people. Crap history by amateur historians like Applebaum or Meacham but also some academics who were willing ....to create historical narratives in the service of the national security state. Snyder, O'Brien, many of Eastern Europe historians in Germany and Switzerland, many more. Side note: the betrayal of the university as such by St. Andrews went much further than anything .....we ever saw in the Cold War. Project Camelot looks benign in comparison. Back to this war and how historians of the future will judge the Joshis but foremost the politicians. Western intelligence will have had rather exact numbers of mutual losses from the beginning.There will be analyses, charts, extrapolations, predictions in these records. There will have been warnings from the get-go that only immediate negotiations can save Ukraine, that this is unwinnable. There will have been opposite voices as well. ..... The moment Eliot Cohen forbade critical reporting (successfully for over a year) these people were aware of what they were doing to Ukraine. After the failed summer "counter" offensive of 2023 it was beyond doubt that the chances to..... influence the outcome of this conflict from the outside were very limited. But they kept going, throwing good money after bad. And the journalists were on board knowing full well that this will be a do or die for their reputation.And Joshi's claim about their critical reporting is an ass-saving attempt if there ever was one. Last: if Western politicians knew early on that Ukrainian losses were more or less equal to Russian ones, then they were irresponsible and reckless in carrying on. If.....we find out that Ukrainian loses were even higher than Russian ones after the early months, than these decision-makers were outright criminal. Much more criminal than the irresponsible crowd responsible for the slaughter of Vietnam.The Best and the Brightest in retrospect have to be regarded as delusional, strategically incompetent and murderous. But that Ukraine War group is arguably much much worse.And this was also possible as there was practically no establishment journalist willing to ask critical questions. It's a complete failure of or systems, or democracies. And people like Joshi bear major responsibility. The collective guilt of the Atlanticists.You can criticise the 1960s USA for very good reasons. But at least they had journalists who did the right thing. Not today.

There are some valid points in here, and we should never forget that wars and their outcome are unpredictable. Much of what he says about Russia can't be proven but as an analyst you have to take into account the possibility that the Russian situation could be even ... ... ... worse than the optimistic Atlanticists such as Joshi think. It's not likely but possible. Then again, there's two factors which are decisive in this war, manpower and public support. Regarding the latter, Russia is very much a black box and... ... ... don't get me started about the sanctions crowd who will finish this war as an embarrassment having been proven completely incompetent and delusional. But we just can't predict whether societal support for this war in Russia will hold and for how long. ... On the surface things look much worse in Ukraine but no one can define whether that society will be willing to make this effort for another four months or for four years. But the factor to measure we have is manpower. Ukraine had an impressive... ... ...manpower advantage at the beginning of this war, a major reason for the incredulity of many analysts regarding Russian intention for attack. But this advantage has been turned on its head, many Ukrainian reports from the front mention overwhelming Russian numbers. ... Claims like Joshi's here about a more or less equal artillery capacity are highly dubious as are the old canards of meat attacks or imaginary North Korean helpers. All these fairy tales, many started by the Economist whose reporting on this war has been... ... ...nothing more than an echo chamber of the deeply involved British state in this war, are invented for one reason only: to keep up public support for this war by pretending that there still is a good chance for Ukraine winning as Russians losses ... ... ...on the battlefield are much higher than Ukrainian ones by an order of magnitude. Check the Economist archive and you will see this claim again and again. Two thirds to three fourths of losses in high intensity war are inflicted by artillery. ... That's why the Ukrainians, the Economist and the Gady-Lee-Kofman front tourist group are claiming an artillery exception to the otherwise complete Western abandonment regarding arms supplies to Ukraine. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. ... Which means that it is very likely that Ukrainian loses are at least on the same level than Russian ones which makes Ukrainian victory unlikely in the long term. Sure, Russian will to fight and to take these losses might still weaken the longer the war lasts, .. ... .. this BTW the scenario Atlanticists are right now betting their houses on. But given the fact that Putin can continue the war by creating manpower through financial incentives doesn't seem to make this very likely. At the end of the day Joshi - who is... ... .. and some kind of Korea solution implemented which could be sold as "saving Ukraine" despite ending the security and welfare of the whole continent for good apart from it's buccaneering and reckless peripheral islands. And sure, you can win wars without inflicting... ... .. neither stupid nor incompetent (contrary to the Joshis in the German speaking world) but just unpleasant and probably desperate (and I have my history with that lad) - is aware of all this. And hopes that complete Russian victory can be prevented .. ... ...higher losses on the enemy, take Vietnam. But here we are back at one of Vance's best points, the spurious use of weaponized history by these people. Crap history by amateur historians like Applebaum or Meacham but also some academics who were willing .. ... ..to create historical narratives in the service of the national security state. Snyder, O'Brien, many of Eastern Europe historians in Germany and Switzerland, many more. Side note: the betrayal of the university as such by St. Andrews went much further than anything .. ... ...we ever saw in the Cold War. Project Camelot looks benign in comparison. Back to this war and how historians of the future will judge the Joshis but foremost the politicians. Western intelligence will have had rather exact numbers of mutual losses from the beginning. ... There will be analyses, charts, extrapolations, predictions in these records. There will have been warnings from the get-go that only immediate negotiations can save Ukraine, that this is unwinnable. There will have been opposite voices as well. ... ... .. The moment Eliot Cohen forbade critical reporting (successfully for over a year) these people were aware of what they were doing to Ukraine. After the failed summer "counter" offensive of 2023 it was beyond doubt that the chances to... ... .. influence the outcome of this conflict from the outside were very limited. But they kept going, throwing good money after bad. And the journalists were on board knowing full well that this will be a do or die for their reputation. ... And Joshi's claim about their critical reporting is an ass-saving attempt if there ever was one. Last: if Western politicians knew early on that Ukrainian losses were more or less equal to Russian ones, then they were irresponsible and reckless in carrying on. If... ... ..we find out that Ukrainian loses were even higher than Russian ones after the early months, than these decision-makers were outright criminal. Much more criminal than the irresponsible crowd responsible for the slaughter of Vietnam. ... The Best and the Brightest in retrospect have to be regarded as delusional, strategically incompetent and murderous. But that Ukraine War group is arguably much much worse. ... And this was also possible as there was practically no establishment journalist willing to ask critical questions. It's a complete failure of or systems, or democracies. And people like Joshi bear major responsibility. The collective guilt of the Atlanticists. ... You can criticise the 1960s USA for very good reasons. But at least they had journalists who did the right thing. Not today.