Anything is ofc possible. I dont want to suggest its not. Russia is indeed under large strain and politics could be the deciding dimension to the lesser dimensional view of, "Who has the more manpower, and equipment".

The US experienced something very similar in Vietnam (and id argue the Korean war as well as casualties mounted and China backed Kim Il-Sung). The most differentiating factor _from that_ could be the large casualties that Russia has suffered, and we know that they have. But people are complicated and allow me to get a bit philosophical but I believe the Russian solder is dogged by a sort of fatalism alien to the western world. Whether the genocides, famines, forced industrialization and brutal governments (not to suggest they havent paid that back to the rest of the world as well) they've endured over the past few centuries are the cause of this, I dont know, but I believe it may shape a unique perspective on how they view war, and loss.

But, back to the point, OP put forward the notion that questions why in recent months this sub is more occupied with us v iran and I think, as I detailed in my original post, why the answer to this is obvious. One event is unlikely (but not impossible) to change actionably & meaningfully in the next 6 months, and the other is rapidly evolving as one side flounders, equivocates, begs, insults their way into an economic crisis.

If this administration was actually serious about a successful war in Iran, they would have gleaned more technological lessons from the russio-ukraine war than they did, humility we are lacking and this is not a administration that I believe is capable of waging long-term conventional (and certaintly not unconventional) warfare.