Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

This only shows how extremely difficult is to find a realistic peaceful solution at the moment. From Ukrainian point of view its existential, so it might be a better option to fight now and bleed Russia as much as possible, while they make mistakes and take pretty heavy casualities. If you appease Russians now, they will be back but better prepared and stronger.

We just established that you can't stop them from coming back. Not without destroying them and nobody is lining up to do that. Thankfully, for this world. So this appeasement argument is just nonsensical. There is such dissonance between the stated goals and the measures being taken to get to them it's not even funny. It is NOT a realistic argument that if this becomes protracted they will not come back. Now, from a Ukrainian point of view bleeding Russia means bleeding themselves out too. It seems that detail is always glossed over by the more gung-ho "death to Russia" crowd. Fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian is not exactly in Ukraine's best interest and the west needs to stop emboldening Ukraine with false promises and rhetoric. The west is not going to fight Russia over Ukraine, Ukraine cannot push Russia out without western intervention, therefore Ukraine will fail to achieve its stated goals just as much if not more as Russia has failed to achieve theirs. Serious negotiations should have started months ago. If not years.

[Cope]

It is entirely realistic to expect that dedicated resistance will act as a future deterrent. The unrealistic expectation is that Ukraine will simply roll over, particularly when it has such broad international backing (esp. from the US).

[Alastor]

It is entirely realistic to expect that dedicated resistance will act as a future deterrent. The unrealistic expectation is that Ukraine will simply roll over, particularly when it has such broad international backing (esp. from the US).

Please. The first Chechen war lasted 2 years and ended up a defeat for Russia. They were still back 4 years later. Not much of a future deterrent that resistance. The only way to guarantee that Russia won't come back is to destroy Russia, which is not in the cards. Anything short of that is wishful thinking. Just like it is wishful thinking that Ukraine can push Russia out without a western intervention, also not in the cards. So since Russia is not going anywhere and Ukraine can't achieve its stated goals, a negotiated settlement where neither side gets all that they want but enough to have an interest in keeping the peace, is the only realistic option.

[z3n]

We just established that you can't stop them from coming back. Not without destroying them and nobody is lining up to do that. Thankfully, for this world. So this appeasement argument is just nonsensical. There is such dissonance between the stated goals and the measures being taken to get to them it's not even funny. It is NOT a realistic argument that if this becomes protracted they will not come back. Now, from a Ukrainian point of view bleeding Russia means bleeding themselves out too. It seems that detail is always glossed over by the more gung-ho "death to Russia" crowd. Fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian is not exactly in Ukraine's best interest and the west needs to stop emboldening Ukraine with false promises and rhetoric. The west is not going to fight Russia over Ukraine, Ukraine cannot push Russia out without western intervention, therefore Ukraine will fail to achieve its stated goals just as much if not more as Russia has failed to achieve theirs. Serious negotiations should have started months ago. If not years.

What's interesting is that the media has started to quietly talk about Ukranian casualties after Zelensky hinted at a possible number of military deaths (100 per day). For example a report about the problems Ukranian volunteers face. They've also very briefly reported about the 2500 veteran soldiers who surrendered at Mariupol, although this catastrophic loss in manpower wasn't really highlighted or talked about in depth.

But after three months of war, this company of 120 men is down to 54 because of deaths, injuries and desertions.

And in recent weeks, he said, the situation has gotten much worse. When their supply chains were cut off for two days by the bombardment, the men were forced to make do with a potato a day.


It’s a miracle the Russians haven’t pushed through their defensive line in Toshkivka, Khrus said as Lapko nodded. Besides their rifles and hand grenades, the only weapons they were given were a handful of rocket-propelled grenades to counter the well-equipped Russian forces. And no one showed Lapko’s men how to use the RPGs.

“We had no proper training,” Lapko said.
“It’s around four RPGs for 15 men,” Khrus said, shaking his head.

So the Ukranian volunteers are stuck using RPG's, which makes you wonder, why not the famous Javelin? If we zoom in on the most famous case of weapons being supplied, the Javelin, we can see that there's been flags raised about supply limits a month ago. USA has given over 33% (a month ago) of its entire supply for Javelins over to Ukraine, the remaining 66% needs some to be kept in reserve for potential future conflicts like Taiwan, Asia, or the Middle East. By this point I'd guess supply is down half again, and no additional Javelins in sight due to the slow production time of 32 months per Javelin. So they're probably very close to their absolute limits for giving Javelins.

Interestingly, it's a similar situation for Stingers. It also seems one of the reasons tanks and planes are awkwardly being avoided as an export to Ukraine, the Kornet and S-300/S-400 are quite effective and would probably have an adverse financial impact on buyers from other countries if they saw Russia blowing up western tanks and shooting down western stealth airplanes. Especially given we have the examples of the Kornet blowing up German Leopard 2 tanks operating in Syria. Mitigation tactics versus antiaircraft also require extensive training, which Ukranian pilots would not have.

The United States has not published figures about its Javelin inventory, so this must be deduced. According to the Army budget books, total production has been 37,739 since production began in 1994. Every year, U.S. forces use some missiles for training and testing. Thus, there may be 20,000 to 25,000 remaining in the stockpiles. These 7,000 systems represent about one-third of the U.S. total inventory.
That fraction doesn't sound like much; after all, two-thirds of the inventory remains. However, military planners are likely getting nervous. The United States maintains stocks for a variety of possible global conflicts that may occur against North Korea, Iran, or Russia itself. At some point, those stocks will get low enough that military planners will question whether the war plans can be executed. The United States is likely approaching that point.


The obvious answer is to build more missiles (and launch units, the control box that goes on the missile). The United States has been buying Javelins at the rate of about 1,000 a year. The maximum production rate is 6,480 a year, though it would likely take a year or more to reach that level. The delivery time is 32 months; that is, once an order is placed, it will take 32 months before a missile is delivered. This means that it will take about three or four years to replace the missiles that have been delivered so far. If the United States delivers more missiles to Ukraine, this time to replace extends.


_______



One system for which inventories and replenishment rates are limited is the Stinger anti-aircraft missile. According to the White House fact sheet, the United States has provided 2,000 Stingers to the Ukrainians. The United States has not purchased any since 2003. At that time, the total production was stated as 11,600 missiles (from the FY 2000 budget documents). With testing and training losses of 1 percent a year, the remaining inventory would be about 8,000. So, the United States has sent about a quarter of its inventory to Ukraine.



In 2003, the last time the United States procured Stingers, production rates were stated as 275 with standard shifts (called "1-8-5") and 720 at maximum production rate. Production lead time was 24 months. That means it will take at least five years to replace the inventory drawdown (two years for lead time and three years for production).

Currently, as reported, it's an grinding artillery war which is Russias favorite thing to do and something their army specializes in; so really its quite bleak for Ukraine no matter what sort of weapons they might receive.

According to a study by RAND, even the entirety of USA's artillery arsenal would face serious challenges against Russia in an artillery war

In a potential future conflict with Russia, U.S. ground fires would face a variety of challenges, including being outranged and significantly outnumbered, limitations the Russians can impose on U.S. target acquisition systems, the complexity of coordinating joint fires, and the need to preposition heavy equipment and ammunition.

Asking them to spend even more blood fighting Russia always seemed a bit macabre to me, given that Ukraine basically has no chance to begin with in the sort of war Russia excels at and has even been said to prefer.

Far as I can tell, they're going to end up accomplishing their seeming objective of conquering the "pro-russian" voting territory from the ukranian election data no matter how much blood it takes on both the sides.

What explains Russia’s evident preference for the siege? Would it not make more sense to quickly annihilate the Ukrainians? Perhaps. However, the siege’s benefit is its ability to transfer military power into political progress, while obfuscating the associated costs. A rapid, violent, decisive victory in which hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers are killed in a matter of days is counterproductive to Russia’s political goals, whereas the incremental use of violence over time accomplishes the same objectives with less disturbance to the international community. Imagine a formation of tanks driving through the desert. They can quickly get to an objective by driving full-throttle, but in doing so they kick up a large amount of dust, making the formation and its direction of travel observable to any onlooker. However, a formation of tanks moving slowly through the desert produces a much smaller dust signature, making its presence less noticeable and its intentions less discernible. “Dust clouds” on the battlefield are inevitable, but how they are managed in pursuit of political objectives is the essence of good strategy. This is a key consideration in understanding Russia’s proclivity for the siege.

[Cope]

Please. The first Chechen war lasted 2 years and ended up a defeat for Russia. They were still back 4 years later. Not much of a future deterrent that resistance. The only way to guarantee that Russia won't come back is to destroy Russia, which is not in the cards. Anything short of that is wishful thinking. Just like it is wishful thinking that Ukraine can push Russia out without a western intervention, also not in the cards. So since Russia is not going anywhere and Ukraine can't achieve its stated goals, a negotiated settlement where neither side gets all that they want but enough to have an interest in keeping the peace, is the only realistic option.

Wishful is the belief/expectation that Ukraine either will or should offer terms while it retains the capacity to meaningfully resist. Of course, the claim that "neither side can get all that they want" is an implicit concession that the unexpected success of Ukraine's military (esp. the defense of Kiev) has already significantly weakened Russia's position (which we can assume initially included regime change).

[Alastor]

Wishful is the belief/expectation that Ukraine either will or should offer terms while it retains the capacity to meaningfully resist. Of course, the claim that "neither side can get all that they want" is an implicit concession that the unexpected success of Ukraine's military (esp. the defense of Kiev) has already significantly weakened Russia's position (which we can assume initially included regime change).

If Ukraine didn't have the means to resist it wouldn't be a negotiated settlement, it would be a surrender. The idea that negotiated settlements are not on the table, that it is all or nothing will simply prolong this war further for no gain. I don't know why you keep imagining concessions like every time we discuss a topic, but as usual you are misrepresenting my position. I said that neither side would get all that they want via a negotiated settlement, the benefit would be a quicker peace and de-escalation. I didn't say that neither side can get all that they want. I did not discuss that.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Funny how the overlap between those upset that Ukraine has resisted Russian influence and now invasion in the first place, and those who now put the onus on Kiev/the West to end the war Putin started, is nearly 100%. Almost like ending the carnage has very little to do with it.

[Cope]

If Ukraine didn't have the means to resist it wouldn't be a negotiated settlement, it would be a surrender.

Glad we agree that Ukraine has the capacity to resist meaningfully (i.e. to the extent that it can limit Russia's ambitions).

The idea that negotiated settlements are not on the table, that it is all or nothing will simply prolong this war further for no gain.

Which is not an idea I have voiced.

I don't know why you keep imagining concessions like every time we discuss a topic, but as usual you are misrepresenting my position.

The claims that "it is wishful thinking that Ukraine can push Russia out [of Ukraine]" and "Russia is not going anywhere and Ukraine can't achieve its stated goals" imply that Ukraine will have to make concessions (esp. territorial) as part of a "negotiated settlement".

I said that neither side would get all that they want via a negotiated settlement, the benefit would be a quicker peace and de-escalation. I didn't say that neither side can get all that they want. I did not discuss that.

A "quicker peace" isn't necessarily an advantageous peace for Ukraine.

[Alastor]

Glad we agree that Ukraine has the capacity to resist meaningfully (i.e. to the extent that it can limit Russia's ambitions).

Technically, I said resist. Not meaningfully resist. But anyway.

Which is not an idea I have voiced.

What did you voice then? What is the point of this debate if you didn't voice this idea?

The claims that "it is wishful thinking that Ukraine can push Russia out [of Ukraine]" and "Russia is not going anywhere and Ukraine can't achieve its stated goals" imply that Ukraine will have to make concessions (esp. territorial) as part of a "negotiated settlement".

I can't see any scenario where they get the Crimea for starters. So yes. Do you see any such scenario?

A "quicker peace" isn't necessarily an advantageous peace for Ukraine.

So it should not be negotiated? It should not be attempted? Right. Cost considerations are always at play obviously, but Kiev should not be goaded into continuing a war with false promises and unrealistic expectations. Instead they should be advised to negotiate. In fact, they should have been advised to do that long ago.

[Alastor]

An interesting interview with a Ukrainian academic discussing Zelensky and the situation in Ukraine: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/z...et-neoliberal/

I follow Zelensky’ war speeches on a regular basis, and I can confidently say that the way he frames the conflict can hardly lead to any diplomatic resolution as he permanently repeats that the forces of good are attacked by the forces of evil. Clearly, there can be no political solution for such an Armageddon. What falls out of this mythical frame of reference for the war is the broader context of the situation: the fact that for years Ukraine has been refusing to implement the Minsk peace agreements, which were signed in 2015 after the defeat of the Ukrainian army in the Donbass war. According to these agreements, Donbass had to receive a political autonomy within Ukraine—a point inconceivable and unacceptable for radicals. Instead of implementing the document, which was ratified by the UN, Kiev has been fighting with Donbass along the line of demarcation for eight long years. The life of Ukrainians living in these territories has been transformed into a nightmare. For radicals, whose battalions have been fighting there, Donbass people—imagined as sovki and vatniki—do not deserve mercy and indulgence.
The current war is a prolongation of the war of 2014, which started when Kiev sent troops to Donbass to suppress anti-Maidan rebellion under the premise of the so-called “anti-terrorist operation.” The acknowledgement of this broader context does not presuppose the approval of Russia’s “military operation,” but it implies the acknowledgement that Ukraine is also responsible for what is going on. Framing the issue of the current war in terms of a fight of civilization against barbarism or democracy against autocracy is nothing else but manipulation, and this is essential for understanding the situation. Bush’s formula “you are either with us or with terrorists,” propagated by Zelensky in his appeals to the “civilized world,” has turned out to be very convenient in terms of avoiding personal responsibility for the ongoing disaster.
In terms of selling this one-dimensional story to the world, Zelensky’s artistic skills appear invaluable. He is finally on the global stage, and the world is applauding. The former comedian does not even try to hide his satisfaction. Answering the question of a French reporter on March 5, 2022 — the tenth day of the Russian invasion — on how his life had changed with the beginning of the war, Zelensky replied with a smile of delight: “Today, my life is beautiful. I believe that I am needed. I feel it is the most important meaning in life – to be needed. To feel that you are not just an emptiness that is just breathing, walking, and eating something. You live.”
For me, this construction is alarming: it implies that Zelensky enjoys the unique opportunity to perform on a global stage provided by the war. It made his life beautiful; he lives. In contrast to millions of Ukrainians whose life is not nice at all and thousands of those who are not alive any longer.

[Vanoi]

Nice article blaming Ukraine. They fail to mention that neither side followed the Minsk agreements, not just Ukraine. They fail to mention the rebellion in the East was started by Russia itself who already sent in soldiers into Ukraine to ferment rebellion and take control of territory in Donbass just like they did in Crimea.

I don't expect much from this source though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone

The Grayzone is a known far left publication. Known for misleading publications, conspiracy theories, and being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.

[antaeus]

A "quicker peace" isn't necessarily an advantageous peace for Ukraine.

A quicker peace that leaves the conflict frozen is the outcome we all suggested early on would be one of Putin's end state goals (if anyone cares to flip back through the thread)

Putin has advantageously frozen conflicts in Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine (prior to Feb), Syria, and is actively supporting troubled regimes in central Asia. Early in this thread I imagined Putin's desired strategic outcomes to be something along the lines of: Topple Western leaning Kyiv. If not, render Ukraine a failed state. If not, reduce Ukraine's capacity as a competitor state to near 0 by reducing it's access to the sea, and its mineral/industry rich east.

It is useful to compare Armenia's situation last year here. Armenia suffered a clear battlefield defeat that put it in the position where it became advantageous to request peace to retain any territory given the situation on the ground. That they managed to keep Stepanakert was because they surrendered when they did, had they not surrendered they would have lost this, and perhaps even worse, suffered an invasion of Armenia itself. But even this came close to toppling their government and did it significant harm.

For Ukraine to seek a cease fire now, while it is clear they are still in a position to prosecute a fight, and perhaps even experience success, would likely contribute to either the collapse of Zelenskyy's government (a Putin goal), freezing the conflict (a Putin goal) or the loss of much of Ukraine's coast and industrial/mineral wealth (a Putin goal). All of which would lead to ongoing instability, and the inability for Ukraine to recover indefinitely.

So short of a significant battlefield loss that risks the collapse of their entire frontline or the capture of tens of thousands (as happened to Armenia when they lost Shusha), I can't see any situation whereby Ukraine would have any logical need or desire to seek a cease fire without Russian withdrawal.

[AqD]

Please. The first Chechen war lasted 2 years and ended up a defeat for Russia. They were still back 4 years later. Not much of a future deterrent that resistance. The only way to guarantee that Russia won't come back is to destroy Russia, which is not in the cards. Anything short of that is wishful thinking. Just like it is wishful thinking that Ukraine can push Russia out without a western intervention, also not in the cards. So since Russia is not going anywhere and Ukraine can't achieve its stated goals, a negotiated settlement where neither side gets all that they want but enough to have an interest in keeping the peace, is the only realistic option.

And how would you enforce that settlement? Keep in mind for decades Russia has been bribing NATO officials, murdering NATO civilians, funding far right movement, spreading false information that get people killed and downright invading neighbors - Ukraine is not the first victim nor the last.

To simply put, they're not invading because they want to reach some goal and go home - they're invading because (they assumed) they can. There is no negotiation with evil like that.

While we cannot destroy them without a nuke shootout, we can ban all exports their industry relies on, arrest any pro Russian politicians and activists for treason, and bribe their corrupt officials who are everywhere already to sabotage their military. And we have not even started utilizing media or terrorism, which they have been using themselves.

The war has shown to us how important lies and corruption were to contribute to their struggling situation in Ukraine, and we definitely have the capability to make it much worse to the point their military and government cease to function - the only question is whether we should continue to allow our blind morality to endanger the lives of everyone on this planet.

[Alastor]

Nice article blaming Ukraine. They fail to mention that neither side followed the Minsk agreements, not just Ukraine. They fail to mention the rebellion in the East was started by Russia itself who already sent in soldiers into Ukraine to ferment rebellion and take control of territory in Donbass just like they did in Crimea.

I don't expect much from this source though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone

The Grayzone is a known far left publication. Known for misleading publications, conspiracy theories, and being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.

I think that the things you say have been mentioned by more than enough outlets... that forgot to mention that Ukraine, the democratic bastion, shares any part of the blame. This interview is interesting because it presents a different opinion, from a Ukrainian academic no less. And it is an interview, not an op-ed, or other such article. That's sth to keep in mind. But I guess it's easier to try and discredit where it was published, rather than what it says.

So short of a significant battlefield loss that risks the collapse of their entire frontline or the capture of tens of thousands (as happened to Armenia when they lost Shusha), I can't see any situation whereby Ukraine would have any logical need or desire to seek a cease fire without Russian withdrawal.

So the desire to avoid further loss of life and even more destruction of their country is not a logical goal? What about avoiding a situation just like the one you described from actually occurring? Ukraine has some cards on the table now, if they seriously negotiated they could perhaps get more than they would after they experience such significant losses as those you describe. Are you willing to gamble that Ukraine's success will continue, if indeed it even is a success now? More importantly is Zelensky? Are the odds really that much in their favour, or are they taken by the west's rhetoric and false promises of support?

And how would you enforce that settlement? Keep in mind for decades Russia has been bribing NATO officials, murdering NATO civilians, funding far right movement, spreading false information that get people killed and downright invading neighbors - Ukraine is not the first victim nor the last.

I wouldn't enforce it. I can't. At this stage, nobody can. The point was that they would receive sth that would incentivize them not to break that settlement. A cost/benefit calculation that deters them. A win enough. Not that we would force Russia to do anything. The comparisons to various other wars where determined resistance pushed a greater power out keep neglecting one minor detail. Ukraine is a crucial, core interest of Russia. Ukraine is not some far off adventure. Russia will not ever abandon its interests in Ukraine. Not as long as it exists in its current form.

To simply put, they're not invading because they want to reach some goal and go home - they're invading because (they assumed) they can. There is no negotiation with evil like that.

While we cannot destroy them without a nuke shootout, we can ban all exports their industry relies on, arrest any pro Russian politicians and activists for treason, and bribe their corrupt officials who are everywhere already to sabotage their military. And we have not even started utilizing media or terrorism, which they have been using themselves.

And how is any of that going to stop them from coming back? Hint: It isn't. The only thing it will do is turn them to alternative and homebrewed sources of production, while at the same time turning us into the authoritarian autocracies we supposedly stand against.

Also when the argument is that one side is evil, the other is good, there is little hope for negotiation, yet that's exactly what's required. It is extremely inconsistent from our end to on one side use such terms that preclude the sole logical exit from this situation, negotiations, when not pursuing the only alternative, war.

The war has shown to us how important lies and corruption were to contribute to their struggling situation in Ukraine, and we definitely have the capability to make it much worse to the point their military and government cease to function - the only question is whether we should continue to allow our blind morality to endanger the lives of everyone on this planet.

The only way to stop them is to fight them ourselves. We aren't doing that, thankfully, so everything else is empty rhetoric. You are correct that this war did benefit the west in one way though, that is that it exposed that Russia's military was troubled by even more issues than we expected. This if anything deflated Russia's threat to the west, despite fervent attempts to inflate it back. I don't see how that's any comfort to the Ukrainians of course. Or how it makes up for all the damage this war did to our economies, or the world's food availability, or wherever else.

[Mithradates]

And how do you imagine you'll stop them from doing that? A full-on NATO invasion? A nuclear war? The destruction of the Russian state? As long as Russia exists, it will have interests in Ukraine. There is no guarantee they will "never come back". So barring a negotiated settlement that takes into account Russia's interests and incentivizes them to keep the peace, the only other path is the destruction of Russia. Thankfully the western leaders, whatever their faults, haven't yet lost their minds completely.

They wont came back if they wont have the equipment to do it, Russian huge tank losses in Ukraine lead to reactivate old T-62 MBTs, also there are videos of Russians using t-55(!) tanks, they stopped manufacturing those in the 70's

Russia can't make more tanks

The White House says the controls have left Russia’s two major tank plants — the Uralvagonzavod Corporation and Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant — idle due to a lack of foreign components.

The sanctions are working.

[Alastor]

They wont came back if they wont have the equipment to do it, Russian huge tank losses in Ukraine lead to reactivate old T-62 MBTs, also there are videos of Russians using t-55(!) tanks, they stopped manufacturing those in the 70's

Russia can't make more tanks

The sanctions are working.

Maybe they won't come back in 3 months. But in a couple of years? It's seriously wishful thinking to believe that Russia can't make more tanks. Even if currently there is a disruption in their production lines, I don't see anyone claiming that this is a long term concern.

An interesting point, about 10 days after this yahoo article you linked, the "idle" Uralvagonzavod completed a dispatch of T-90Ms to the Russian army. So yeah, I would take such broad, unverified claims with a few pinches of salt. Even in the short term but much more so in the long term, which is what we were discussing.

[AqD]

Maybe they won't come back in 3 months. But in a couple of years? It's seriously wishful thinking to believe that Russia can't make more tanks. Even if currently there is a disruption in their production lines, I don't see anyone claiming that this is a long term concern.

They lost entire machinery industry post Soviet, and they haven't been able to make anything new like GPS or computer chips.

If we can keep all western technology blocked and continue to facilitate their braindrain, it's safe to say they won't be able to make any weapon post WW2. And who'd maintain their nukes once all old generations are dead and younger generations of any intelligence move to west? We can definitely stop them with persistence and right strategies.

[Alastor]

They lost entire machinery industry post Soviet, and they haven't been able to make anything new like GPS or computer chips.

If we can keep all western technology blocked and continue to facilitate their braindrain, it's safe to say they won't be able to make any weapon post WW2. And who'd maintain their nukes once all old generations are dead and younger generations of any intelligence move to west? We can definitely stop them with enough effort and some strategy.

More wishful thinking. For a start Russia has an alternative to GPS for their own territory, as well as agreements with 3rd countries (I believe it was India) to produce GPS receivers. As for chips, Russia can produce chips and they plan to expand their production ability. Are their chips as sophisticated as those made in Taiwan? Not even close. In fact they are at least a decade behind. But do they have to be? No. Look at the type of weaponry employed in this war. Where do you see such advanced chips being used? In fact I wonder what large-scale produced military hardware in the whole world uses state of the art chips for anything crucial.

This whole "the Russians can't do tech" argument is simply ego-stroking that has no bearing on actual real-world considerations.

[Mithradates]

Maybe they won't come back in 3 months. But in a couple of years? It's seriously wishful thinking to believe that Russia can't make more tanks. Even if currently there is a disruption in their production lines, I don't see anyone claiming that this is a long term concern.

An interesting point, about 10 days after this yahoo article you linked, the "idle" Uralvagonzavod completed a dispatch of T-90Ms to the Russian army. So yeah, I would take such broad, unverified claims with a few pinches of salt. Even in the short term but much more so in the long term, which is what we were discussing.

Russia is resorting to putting computer chips from dishwashers and refrigerators in tanks due to US sanctions, official says

Russia's military relies heavily on technology made by the US and allies, who have banned exports.

They wont be able to keep up with NATO technology, that alone would make them think twice before attacking Ukraine again.

[Alastor]

Russia is resorting to putting computer chips from dishwashers and refrigerators in tanks due to US sanctions, official says

They wont be able to keep up with NATO technology, that alone would make them think twice before attacking Ukraine again.

Ok, if some US official who was told by some random Ukrainian said so, it must be true. Sigh...

Either way, they are already not on par with NATO technology-wise, but they don't have to be. NATO is not at war with Russia and isn't going to be at war with Russia, thankfully. This is a proxy war at most, not a direct confrontation. All that Russia needs to do to come back is to ensure its nuclear deterrent keeps NATO proper out, which it does and will continue to do, and that it is stronger than its immediate target, which it is and will continue to be.