Ukraine-Russia War Take 2

Ok Russia is losing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_s...

'No manpower issues'.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-e...

And why haven't they taken Kyiv? That was meant to happen on Day 3 or something, and it's been more than two years. Bit embarrassing.

The world will be a much better place if Russia loses than otherwise

Putin is struggling to figure out what "winning" means in this game now. He's gone from chess to checkers to tic tac toe to "guess the number I'm thinking of". This isn't to say that Ukraine is "winning" because it's not some match where at the end one side is declared winner, then everyone shakes hands and goes their own way, but Russia has moved the goalposts so much that it's no longer the same game.

What do you think Russia's win conditions are, and how do they relate to their prewar aims?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-trump-pea...

A Trump Peace Plan for Ukraine
Among the essentials are a lend-lease program, real sanctions on Russia, and a revitalized NATO.

People I don’t trust

1) Putin
2) Trump

you can always trust Melanie to be Melanie

Yep, I'm certainly not saying to trust Trump. It's an interesting change in approach from him though.

South Korean intelligence is reporting massive shipments of artillery and missile systems shipped from North Korea to Russia recently. I guess we know why Putin was in North Korea recently and let himself get punked.

Rumors about a very large prisoner exchange between USA and RU happening right now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2...

F-16 fighter jets finally fly in Ukraine in major boost for Kyiv
The much-vaunted arrival of the warplanes will be met by significant fanfare given their potential role in Ukraine’s fight against Russia

Their win condition is the same as it has been for a long time:

1. Exhaust foreign support for Ukraine.
2. Wage a war of sabotage, espionage and propaganda operations in countries that support Ukraine.
3. Secure Ukrainian landmass to make counter-offensives very difficult
4. Maintain tactical pressure to prevent build-up of Ukrainian offensive capacity, even if it means taking enormous losses.
5. Convert Russian economy to a war economy.
6. Make and keep alliances to allow for enough ammunition and equipment.
7. Recruit enough soldiers.

Basically, if they can keep up losing for long enough, they might eke out something a historian graciously labels a "win".

Like before the war, Ukraine is not really a threat to Russia itself, Russia is simply too vast and too big. So their win condition is to kill enough Russian soldiers and destroy enough Russian equipment so the war becomes unpopular enough in Russia to threaten the personal survival of members of the Russian regime.

Interestingly, the rumors appear to be leaking from Russian sources; indicating they are trying to get some leverage to increase their compensation for the hostages they are willing to return.

I agree with all of the above as far as long term objectives. I was more referring to this part:

What is that "win"? I don't think either side has a clear theory of victory for how to achieve their objectives. Russia was originally going to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet government. When that failed they moved to conquering the "annexed" territories. That's likely failed, so now they're moving to bombing Ukraine's infrastructure so it becomes a failed state and easier to conquer when they try again, but this needs to be in a manner and timeframe which allows Russia to not become a failed state itself, which also seems unlikely.

Meanwhile Ukraine's theory of threatening Crimea so Russia would have to enter peace negotiations failed. Ceding territory while exacting high costs isn't really a strong theory for victory either.

It seems like both sides are in a state where they just wait and see how the elections play out and then decide what to do.

I wouldn't read that much into it. It's more that Russia is monitored so closely, they are easy to track, and they have tons of people leaking information.

Ukraine is not going to publicly debate (on a high level of decision-making, that is) what they would accept or not accept. That would be an incredible display of weakness, and the ensuing debate and difference in opinions in the public would likely cause massive loss of trust.

Right now Russia is mired in a war which makes wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan (CCCP one) or the Chechen wars look like walks in the park, they are suffering WW1 style losses. What exactly this will lead to for Ukraine is uncertain, but they don't really have much of a choice. It is an existential war for their state but also their nation. They are fighting an enemy that says the Ukrainian ethnicity simply does not exist and which is already running concentration camps to make that point true.

As for what constitutes a Russian "win", pretty much anyone sane is confused by that. Russia is plagued by imperial ideals married to nationalist fascism, and everything is glued together by corruption which offers the state what stability it has. They are the remnants of a colonial empire that never disbanded and still brutally oppresses talks of independence in the old colonies they still control. They are also hellbent on using tanks and soldiers to win back the lucky countries that got away. In the process they turn these places into horrifying hellholes that offer little and produce less, but that does not seem to bother the regime much.

So it is not really about reason. A Russia that instead used diplomacy, intelligence and money in envelopes to bring their old holdings into economic and military alliances would have been a superpower by now. Instead they're crashing their economy and chaining themselves to China, apparently with the goal to make the world more ****.

I'm not expecting Ukraine to publicly debate what they are willing to accept.

I don't think that either side is anywhere close to actually being willing to accept the terms necessary to have a peace deal. At the same time neither side has a "win" condition that is anywhere realistic anymore, so they will continue trying to hurt the other as much as possible even though it's not really leading to anything close to a victory. They are instead doing this in the hope that it will put them in a more favorable position whenever they decide to talk peace.

Ukraine is hoping they can outlast Russia's economic woes. Russia is hoping they can outlast the West's resolve, and also that they can inflict enough damage on Ukrainian infrastructure that they will not have a future. Both sides think that time is on their side. Both sides are also increasingly having problems supporting the war due to a lack of a clear vision (although Ukraine claims 30k recruits each month since May, and the threat is an existential one, so they seem to have an advantage here). It's now a purely attritional war, where shoring up support will become increasingly important for goals which are becoming more and more obscure. It's grim.

I agree with your assessment on Russia.

Ukraine's win condition is far from unrealistic, it has just from the start been discussed by people with unrealistic expectations. This war was never going to end up with some big tactical wave of unstoppable Ukrainian effort.

My prediction a few years back was that this would become a slugfest along entrenched borders, which is somewhat what it has become. Those borders are often closer to Russia than I personally expected, which both tells of how Ukraine has achieved way more than many thought, but also poses a big tactical problem in itself.

Nor was Ukraine ever a strategic or existential threat to Russia, that scenario only exists in the heads of Russian propagandists and their weirdly eager audience. So Ukraine was never going to win by forcing an unconditional surrender. Ukraine's way to victory is, simply put, to kill enough Russian soldiers and destroy enough Russian equipment and do it over enough years that Russia chooses withdrawal.

This is not an unrealistic scenario. It's actually the rather typical way that big powerful countries end up losing wars against smaller ones.

I don't think many people thought that Ukraine was going to steamroll through the occupied areas, reconquering all territory. However they could have threatened Crimea by isolating it and then sat down at the peace negotiations in a favorable position. That is not likely to happen anymore.

A win condition being "we're going to keep retreating and losing men while our infrastructure is destroyed, but at the same time we're going to exact such a high cost that eventually Russia withdraws years from now" is not going to sell well which is why it is not voiced. A full Russian withdrawal is extremely unlikely. Russia is far more likely to just hold on to as much territory as they can.

I also don't think that this current state of the war is going to last forever. The one area where Russia is excelling at is producing missiles. Patriots are not designed for what they're doing now, they are too expensive. Ukraine needs to have a way to strike the areas that Russia launches its missiles from. I think eventually Russia realizes they cannot keep up the heavy equipment losses, and maybe can't afford the recruits, but they are unlikely to withdraw completely. The heavy equipment and personnel losses will go down a lot when they give up on this stage of the war but they can lob missiles at Ukraine for a long time, and if Ukraine is not able to strike back then there's not much they can do. The war is becoming increasingly about AD and missiles, where Russia has a huge advantage.

So this actually occurred already? Hmm, researching as I write this, it seems to be "underway" at the moment but not yet completed.

Nah, there is nothing to indicate that Russian casualties will reduce, they have been increasing steadily throughout the war and is currently at extreme rates and will continue to be at those rates as long as Ukraine is supplied with weapons and ammunition.

There is not much to indicate Russia is able to do much territorial gain, even at the Kharkiv front with their own border only miles away they're taking losses counted in regiments and divisions to gain unsteady footholds in what is basically villages.

Russia can wage their war of terror and fire missiles at hospitals, schools, market places and infrastructure as much as they want, the Ukraine war isn't Syria or Chechnya where they were for most part fighting pockets of insurgents and civilian unrest. They'll win next to nothing by that, and is likely more about satiating Russian citizens and keeping the manufactured hatred against Ukraine alive.

The Kharkiv offensive failed spectacularly, but it wasn't meant to take that much territory to begin with. It was mostly meant as a fixing operation to help with Chasiv Yar.

I don't think Russia can take much territory either; even now that they have a breakthrough they haven't really been able to exploit it.

If Ukraine is getting as many recruits as they claim and are able to strengthen their lines then I think Russia gives up on this approach. They will defend the territories they've taken, launch missiles, and hope the support situation changes with Trump. I don't think they can continue this indefinitely and they also won't withdraw.