Russia has lost a staggering 87 percent of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior to launching its invasion of Ukraine and two-thirds of its pre-invasion tanks, a source familiar with a declassified US intelligence assessment provided to Congress told CNN.

Still, despite heavy losses of men and equipment, Russian President Vladimir Putin is determined to push forward as the war approaches its two-year anniversary early next year and US officials are warning that Ukraine remains deeply vulnerable. A highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive stagnated through the fall, and US officials believe that Kyiv is unlikely to make any major gains over the coming months.

The assessment, sent to Capitol Hill on Monday, comes as some Republicans have balked at the US providing additional funding for Ukraine and the Biden administration has launched a full-court press to try to get supplemental funding through Congress.

  • mob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    While I agree with the sentiment, it’s not like “we” are trying to beat Russia, right? Ukraine is defending itself. I’d imagine the story would be a little different if the goal was to beat Russia(like a full effort), rather than defend Ukraine.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      11 months ago

      This can be both, and it’s CHEAP.

      For less than 1/10th the direct cost of the Iraq war and at the cost of zero American servicemember lives we’ve set back Russia’s military by decades, strengthened NATO, and actually done something positive for a change.

      • CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t disagree from a purely American standpoint, but I’d caution against calling a war where Ukrainians are being so heavily impacted daily and Ukrainian soldiers are fighting and dying “cheap”. It’s an inexpensive investment in the security of the region and the world on the US’s part, but no war is cheap.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Those of us who believe Ukrainian lives and freedoms are worth preserving don’t need convincing.

          Those that think it’s too expensive to do the right thing need to be shown that even when discounting the moral necessity of the relief, the return on investment is excellent.

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Putin has declared that his “special operation” continues until all the goals have been met, and the goals are “demilitarisation, denazification and Ukraine’s neutrality”. The first two don’t mean anything, and Ukraine doesn’t want to do the third one. So if this stubborness continues, I cannot see any other way forward except “beat Russia”.

      • mob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Oh yeah, and I’d imagine if something like NATO decided to take that path forward in the future, it would probably be possible to beat Russia by killing Russians. I also imagine it would be relatively quick tbh.

        But for humanities sake, I hope they can put together a better, more surgical way to remove the cancer from Russia.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Exactly. The US technically can end the Russo-Ukrainian War any time it wants. All they gotta do is go “boots on the ground”, but that carries problems of its own. Mainly that Russia is a nuclear power and Putin himself has said he’s not afraid to launch.