Analysts Collin Meisel and Mathew Burrows are revisiting their 2025 argument that Russia, due to its size in service-capable population, economy, and munitions production capacity, could absorb more damage than Ukraine. The reassessment comes after another year of combat, marked by Ukrainian defense innovation and continued Russian losses.
The original analysis posited that Russia's structural advantages allowed it to sustain a prolonged conflict despite significant battlefield setbacks. The sheer scale of Russia's resources — including a larger pool of potential soldiers and a defense industrial base capable of churning out artillery shells and missiles — underpinned their conclusion that Moscow could weather a grinding war of attrition.
Ukraine's response has centered on asymmetric warfare and technology-driven tactics, leveraging Western-supplied systems and homegrown drone innovations to inflict disproportionate costs on Russian forces. These efforts have eroded some of Russia's initial advantages, though the Kremlin has adapted by expanding its own drone production and leaning on Iranian and North Korean arms supplies.
NATO allies continue to grapple with the war's trajectory, balancing support for Kyiv with concerns about escalation. Russian leaders have signaled no willingness to compromise, framing the conflict as existential. The battlefield remains dynamic, with neither side achieving a decisive breakthrough in recent months.
A counter-argument holds that Russia's economic resilience may be overstated. Sanctions have strained key sectors, inflation is rising, and labor shortages in defense factories persist. Some analysts contend that Moscow's ability to sustain current casualty rates and equipment losses is finite, particularly if Western military aid to Ukraine accelerates.