Reading play by play in this new thread, it downed on me that it was not entirely red herring when US started propaganda against alleged China's military (material) aid to Russia. It was a pre-emptive political move, for reasons that are manifesting in the battle fields.
One of the biggest material weakness of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine is contactless modern warfare, which is conducted under the material conditions of intelligent weapons and C4ISR in a networked battleground.
UAVs, smart missiles, robotic fighting machines, real-time sensor and communication networks, etc., are the names of the warfare from now on.
Tanks, guns, helicopters etc. are too slow and too vulnerable on the battle fields.
Video game players are as important as foot soldiers.
In this new paradigm of battleground warfare, US and China are the only two major armed forces that have the whole portfolio of elements as well as their production bases. US and China are also the only two countries that can afford deploying and supplying and sustaining this type of new warfare.
One result of this analysis is that Russia does not have conventional wherewithals to march further beyond the Dnieper River. I think Russia will stop after dismembering the remaining Ukraine army in the east. And I doubt Russia can take out Odessa without significant losses and punishing costs.
Therefore, in terms of the battlefield spacing, it may be approaching a balancing point. But it certainly does not mean that the war will end any time soon. It will go back and force along the current frontlines for a long time.
The underlying assumption is that US keeps supplying Ukraine and China does not provide those needed elements to Russia.
