Yes, artillery is at the core of Russian military doctrine. But this only means the rest of its technology is not being used. Where is air superiority? Non-existent. Russia is afraid to put aircraft in Ukrainian sights. Where are the huge tank battles? Non-existent because the Western technology makes Swiss cheese out of even their heaviest armor. I am amazed that someone can still believe in the Russian military when despite overwhelming numbers, Russia has not been able to defend itself against its neighbor, 1/5th its size and certainly less prepared for war. You think it’s a sign of victory that Russia is now using WW2 era tanks they are pulling out of storage? If anything, that shows exactly who is running out of materiel to run the war. And NATO has plenty of munitions. I think you are confusing production and capacity. Are the production of artillery and war machines too low? Yes, and NATO is addressing those issues. However, NATO has huge reserves of munitions sitting in warehouses that it hasn’t even tapped yet. Most of the donations to Ukraine have not even been of NATO’s best stock. It just happened to be a way of clearing old munitions. In some cases, both the US and Germany were going to destroy or mothball equipment only to reroute it to Ukraine. NATO is not running out of stock, it is simply getting rid of old inventory and ramping up production on new munitions. This takes time, but they are not running out. Unlike Russia… What will Russia do next? Having their Cossacks go back to fighting on horseback when the WW2 tanks run out of parts?

You are mentioning 2 different resources: 1. Materiel, 2. Manpower. After an initial bumpy start where Ukraine did indeed lose a few valuable pieces of equipment, you cannot point to any significant loses in the last month – except on the Russian side. And Russia does not have extensive resources thanks to the international sanctions. Russia is now moving troops from one point of attack to another, meaning they no longer have reserves to apply. They have already gone through the prison population, and the lasty conscription drive caused many people to move abroad. They are now conscripting people who have the least motivation to fight and giving them little training. These are death sentences. Meanehile, Ukraine continues to be supported by Western financials and technology. You are perhaps expecting a “blowout” scenario like in Kherkov last year. But placing a greater value on life, Ukraine has been going slow and carefully to minimize losses on thier side. The exact thing you see as a weakness is actually resource protection.

I think many people are forgetting that the larger army, vastly outnumbering Ukrainian resources in numbers, has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion. And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare. Russia has defenses, but no ability to move forward. They are just trying to hold on to what they took in those first few months and are very slowly failing at that. If Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose. I do not think Russia will use nukes – any use of a nuke is basically on Russia’s own land – according to them – and will affect them as much as Ukraine. But the question of ending the war is an interesting one. Do we see Russia continuing the war if they lose most of their ill-gotten territorial gains? What happens to those insecure areas? Are people going to rebuild, i.e. invest scarce resources in unstable areas? Or will they just become dead zones, DMZ borders?