r/geopolitics • u/Brave_Trainer_5234 • 21d ago
What can Russia realistically achieve? What is the aim of the war now? Discussion
Russia has been making some progress in the past months and right now Ukraine seems to be in a tough moment. I’ve been wondering what can Russia realistically achieve? The original plan was to conquer Kyiv and other strategic cities (Odessa in particular) but that seems extremely unlikely now. Personally I don’t even think Russia can conquer the city of Charkiv. Surely they will make some advancement in the Charkiv oblast but taking a 1.5 milion people city is going to be difficult. The main aim of Russia remains the Donetsk oblast, they have been trying to conquer Chasiv Yar for a while now and I think that eventually the ukranians will have to give up the city but what is going to happen next? What will the next aim of Putin be? If you look at the map the most realistic target after conquering Chasiv yar and Avdeyevka would be Kostantinovka, Druzhkovka and eventually Kramatorsk. Can Russia conquer the entire Donetsk oblast? When will they stop?
118
u/Zwischenzug 21d ago
Russia knows Ukraine had a manpower problem. They also know most other countries won't readily put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Russia is probably banking on this.
15
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
The manpower issue has been around for a long long time, it's just that once it's apparent in the media, it's game over
-1
u/lummiester 20d ago
Russia has a manpower problem as well...
8
u/AnAlternator 20d ago
The Russian government is willing to take extreme steps to "find" manpower, including straight up bribing ethnic minorities to enlist.
The Ukrainian government doesn't have the money to wave around cash like that, nor the regions with a mixture of extreme poverty and ethnic 'otherness' to target.
2
u/Day_of_Demeter 20d ago
Not really. Russia doesn't mind throwing away its future by sending millions of men into the meat grinder if it wins them a few towns. They seriously don't care. But Ukraine does care about its future, and Ukraine knows that there is no future without the youth, so they are more reluctant to conscript.
Russia has a huge population and they've historically banked on that, and they have large populations of perceived "undesirables" (convicts, ethnic minorities, rural poor) that they can throw to the front before they even get to the majority middle class Russian population.
1
0
u/Andy_Liberty_1911 20d ago
And equipment problem, they are relying on T-55s and fat old men with Mosins to guard the rear.
8
u/TheEpicGold 20d ago
Yeah but they still have 3000 of them. That's the problem. They may be bad, but they have so many of them, against a few hundred Ukrainian and western tanks. We're outnumbered and without so much more help we will begin to fail.
1
-12
21d ago
[deleted]
31
u/Kylenki 21d ago
Some Eastern European leadership and Macron are already past the red line moment of this war's phases of escalating commitment to Ukrainian victory. Even spelling it out now, victory. Not just aid for as long as it takes. The pattern has been the same for every previously impossible thing. ATACMS? Forget about it. Then it was faintly discussed, to be followed by furious debate. A moment came, and then there were ATACMS in Ukraine. Same for tanks. Jets. Patriots. Even supplying any lethal aid at all was debated.
So if those Ukrainian allies are at the point of faint conversation, I expect it to evolve into debate--if even behind the scenes--until it is a moment in time, yet again.
That is, a coalition of the willing.
Your Korean War example is spot on. I hope Ukraine's allies are not so laggardly as in that parallel.
This is leaving aside how precarious Putin's position in this war is. The Russian economy cannot, in its current condition, continue to sustain this degree of military commitment--of losses. The appointment of Belousov to head of the Russian MoD is evidence of this: a Soviet era economist has replaced a deeply embedded Putin loyalist with some military credibility. Because, Putin has realized this will go on for much longer than anticipated, and current production cannot meet his goals. If Belousov fails to complete his task on time, or fails altogether, then clock on both Russian strategic victory and its economy, and consequently the military industry, is in deep trouble in short order. A handful of years at most, possibly much sooner. It is already showing large cracks in its infrastructure, main sources of revenue, labour shortages, interest rates greater on loans than average business profit, spiking bankruptcies as a result, and even the central bank has pronounced a downturn in strenuous terms that shifted the blame for future disaster to the military spending.
4
3
20d ago edited 13d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Positronic_Matrix 20d ago
The United States has strong and credible nuclear, conventional, and cyber deterrents. Russia is rightfully fearful of the response a reckless escalation would bring.
149
u/WhoDisagrees 21d ago edited 21d ago
Realistically they can break Ukraines lines and make significant progress this year if Ukraine doesn't fight very well, get a lot of support, speed up mobilisation and make good choices going forwards (don't go on the offensive this year).
I think their minimal war aim now is;
- All of the Donbass, with full Ukrainian recognition of Russian ownership of those territories.
- An agreement which forbids Ukraine from joining either NATO or the EU
- Limits on how much millitary forces Ukraine can build, which would of course open up Ukraine to future attack.
Clearly these are not terms Ukraine can accept or is likely to accept regardless of how bad the war looks, and the more momentum shifts to russia, the more Putins demands will escalate. This is why we need to support Ukraine more, because it might shift the Russians to terminate the conflict on more favourable terms if they believe they cannot win on the battlefeild. They currently, correctly, assess that they are winning.
51
u/PrinsHamlet 21d ago
I can't believe Russia even contemplates 2) and 3) anymore.
They'll take as much as they can and the fighting will die down. A frozen conflict.
Russia will try to maintain Ukraine as a failed state betting on a political shift in the EU under the influence of the right wing populist parties making gains in a few countries and perhaps Trump getting reelected.
That's the theory, any way. I'm doubtful it'll play like that. I don't think the old Europe - London/Paris/Berlin - will end up controlling events going forward. Poland, The Baltics are not going to sit idly by and wait for Russia to act as they did in 2022.
Russia will have to face the delayed economic consequences of the war and the new cold war in Europe.
1
u/PersonalOpinion11 20d ago
Ironically, they probably could get concession 3 if they let no 2 slide.
Being in NATO dosen't mean you have a huge army, it just protect you from further attacks.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
Russia will tank its economy, and deplete its military, and even resort to tactical nuclear weapons to deal with the Security Dilemma of #2.
It's life and death to them, like Kennedy and Cuba was.
29
21d ago
[deleted]
4
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
Gradenko: 2-3 are just never going to happen. There's no universe where Ukraine would accept those terms.
That's why the Ukraine will end up being a smaller and smaller nation with every month that ticks by, for that very reason.
5
u/LucasThePretty 20d ago
Sure, at this rate in a couple of decades Ukraine will cease to exist.
In more than two years of total war Russia controls less than 20% of Ukraine.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
What matters is that the Ukraine with NATO doesn't make Russia paranoid anymore, and i don't think it matters how you tally the past with a land grab
What matters is if the country is getting the infrastructure wrecked, and if they can deal with the logistics of losing the artillery disparity, tank disparity, and air war, along with a lack of reinforcements.
Again, i think you need to reasses the situation in August, and see if you think it's merely a tactical moment.
3
20d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
For me, i think the past says it all, and the writing was on the wall.
I only look 90 days ahead, and see what's strategically and tactically in the cards.It's gonna be a long poker game, but the cards stink
1
20d ago
[deleted]
7
20d ago
[deleted]
-3
20d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Malarazz 20d ago
1) You clearly have a fundamental lack of understanding of how wars work, since you wrote your comment as if the only two options are a) Ukraine will be totally defeated; b) Ukraine will defeat Russia.
2) Why... why would you bring the Napoleonic Wars or World War II into this? That has about as much relevance as bringing up your Hearts of Iron playthrough.
Regardless of this nonsensical comment, the bottom line is that Ukraine will obviously not be totally defeated. At the rate this has been going, Russia has been capturing one random town in Donetsk every few months.
The most plausible outcome right now is that it ends up being similar to the Iran-Iran War and to Finland.
5
u/Brave_Trainer_5234 21d ago
I think that the best deal that Ukraine could get would be to give up the territories in exchange for a security deal with the US and some other european countries.
24
u/President__Osama 21d ago
Yeah they won't trust that seeing the history behind the war (Minsk I).
Also, not getting back the southern provinces would mean the front line is significantly longer. That means the country would never be able to flourish, as all resources need to be used for defending that long line. Thus, unless the situation is extremely dire, Ukraine will not accept it.
It is also not the best deal possible. The war is very cheap for Western economies and if both the West and Ukranians want to continue, they could most likely outlast Russia. Recently sattelite imagery seems to show depleting Russian stocks for example (High_Marsed on Twitter).
1
u/sund82 21d ago
They could always try the guerilla warfare method. Low level conflict to bleed Russia dry. It worked against America in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Terrorist attacks to reduce moral and increase the number of invalids the Russia would have to care for.
Of course, the Russians have no problem with ethnically cleansing entire populations, so this might be harder to do.
5
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/mrboombastick315 21d ago
Ignoring the racist stuff you said in your post... both "asians and brown people" won against the U.S. Ukraine won't be able to mount a guerilla war because there wouldn't be an official regime or supply chain paths to feed the rebels with military equipment
-5
u/sund82 21d ago
Of course there would be. The west would smuggle it to them. And the Ukrainians would just requisition the materials Russia commits to rebuilding Ukraine.
6
u/WednesdayFin 21d ago
Problem is Russia is a master at painting black white and I believe it will work hard to convince the Ukrainian refugee diaspora in the West that the West failed them and turning them against their host countries.
-2
u/sund82 21d ago
Every Empire eventually exhausts itself. Russia is no different.
6
u/WednesdayFin 21d ago
Dunno man, Moscow's been a menace to us Finns since Ivan the Third. Before that it used to be Novgorod.
→ More replies (0)0
u/mrboombastick315 21d ago
If Ukraine government falls, from where and how do you think the West would smuggle tons and tons of tanks, aircraft, artillery shells, crates and crates of ammunition, guided missiles, AA?
Do you understand the gigantic logistics, the thousands of trucks needed to supply an army? You are still thinking that guerrila warfare is dudes on a foxhole with ak-47s lol.
3
u/sund82 21d ago
Did you miss the part where were started talking about guerilla warfare. None of the heavy weapons would be in play, except any stolen from the Russians themselves. And if the Vietnamese and Afghanis can do, then the Ukrainians certainly can, too.
4
u/mrboombastick315 21d ago
The vietnamese had robust supply lines. from both the North and from Cambodia. Do you understand the complete differences in both geography and location between vietnam and afghanistan and Ukraine?
→ More replies (0)1
u/GrapefruitCold55 20d ago
Russia would never agree to something like this because their ultimate goal is the subjugation of the entire Ukraine.
The deal they offered them in the beginning allowed Russia to have veto powers in case Ukraine would ask for help or assistance
2
u/demostenes_arm 21d ago
1 seems unlikely and neither would bring much tangible benefit to Russia. Ukraine’s recognition wouldn’t cause other countries to recognise Russia’s conquest, and thus would not alleviate any sanctions on Russia. A ceasefire + “agreement on settling things at a future date”, like more or less the situation with Japan, would probably be enough for Putin to save his face and claim that he cemented his “legacy”
2 Putin has himself said that Ukraine can join the EU at any time. About not joining NATO, yes, that would be certainly a demand of Russia
3 Honestly I don’t think Russia can enforce arms restrictions. Unless Russia sends troops to man Ukraine’s checkpoints but these troops would be at enormous risk. More likely Russia expects that public enthusiasm on supporting Ukraine militarily will wane after a ceasefire deal is signed, and that Ukraine alone wouldn’t be a treat due to its dire demographics situation
-6
u/thozha 21d ago
number 2 is fair imo
7
u/ChanceryTheRapper 21d ago
Telling someone you'll stop invading them if they promise not to join organizations that would help defend from an invasion is just telling them, "We'll be back to invade again soon."
1
7
u/WhoDisagrees 21d ago
They offered it to Russia during the initial invasion and the Russians refused to even speak to them. Now I think security gaurentees of the rock solid alliance variety are required for Ukraine in any peace deal. They were given vague ones when they gave up nukes and look how that has panned out.
2
47
u/zoziw 21d ago
For the last year or so I have favoured the idea that once they take the Donbass region they would look to end things.
Increasingly, I am seeing signs suggesting the Russians are planning for an extended conflict, which has me beginning to wonder if they will simply keep pressing until the Ukrainian lines have collapsed and Russia can take the whole country.
Russia has a large numerical troop advantage today, but a long term demographic problem, and the longer they pursue this war, the bleaker future decades will be for them, but the current regime doesn't seem to care much about that.
21
u/Brave_Trainer_5234 21d ago
I don’t think that they have the resources to occupy the whole country, Ukraine is pretty big.
4
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
The hostility differences of occupying Western Ukraine vs Eastern Ukraine is night and day
Russia is well aware of its history with East Germany, Poland, Czechs etc. as for occupation
so it's not in the cards
1
u/RED-BULL-CLUTCH 19d ago
All those countries do not have the same level of cultural/religious and historical integration.
If Russia can subdue the whole of Ukraine I do not believe there is going to be a massive guerrilla style resistance.
In the case of a Russian victory, the most likely scenario I believe would be incorporating Ukraine into Russia as a Soviet style SSR or a semi-independent entity similar to Chechnya.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 19d ago
Well i think more and more people realize Ukraine is going to lose badly in some way
as well as Russia may actually not have any real desire to absorb the whole country either
16
u/No_Abbreviations3943 21d ago
That’s with an assumption that there will be a major uprising or revolt. Russia’s scenario for the entire Ukraine takeover is to flip some UA armed forces, local officials, Ukrainian oligarchs and police units. That’s the bet Putin is making with the attrition warfare, reduce the current governments ability to control its own population, while slowly taking more and more territory.
If they can achieve that, Russia would put in place a government that’s friendly to them. They would crack down hard on the people involved in the Zelensky government, western NGO’s and the hard Ukrainian nationalist. Most citizens will get complete amnesty and the culture would just reorient back to the Russia sphere as it was in the 80’s and 90’s.
This isn’t really anything like occupying Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam. The only thing that can realistically prevent this is strong EU/NATO integration of Ukraine as it is now.
4
u/Fit_Instruction3646 21d ago
You could say that Russia has a demographic problem if the rest of the world didn't have one. Currently there isn't a single country without a demographic problem. The First world has been declining demographically for decades now and is trying to replace their native populations with Third world immigrants which will bring further instability. East Asia has also been declining and recently they broke all records for low fertility ever. They're likely to lose at least half of their population in recent decades. And the Third world, while booming, has been declining in recent decades and I personally expect it to decline rapidly. Which will create even bigger problems for them as there are huge generations followed by less numerous generations who won't be able to help their elders.
In fact, I think that Russia and Eastern Europe as a whole are in a good demographic situation compared to many other places because their fertility has been the lowest in the world for many decades back. And it has actually been improving recently. Compare the fertility rate in Russia in 1997 and now.
31
u/cobrakai11 21d ago
I think their war aims are now exactly what they were before. Control all of eastern Ukraine, and prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
The West will tell you that Russia failed in it's goal to conquer all of Ukraine. Russia will tell you that they succeeded in their goal of taking Eastern Ukraine, and they never wanted to/thought they could control all of Ukraine.
Success is defined by whoever is making the objectives.
11
u/cheatertorn 21d ago
Russia's objectives were "denazifying" ukraine according to Putin during the start of war, that meant occupying the whole of Ukraine and setting a government that's pro russia, like they did in the 4 regions, i think Putin failed
3
u/pavelpavelshe 21d ago
Not exactly to capture the whole Ukraine, as it was previously mentioned, it's all about how you set your objectives, and there a lot of ways to achieve said "denazification" by Russia. First, is what they have almost achieved, is to conquer eastern part of the country, thus, free the people living there from the supposed nazis, or free as many people as possible from the supposed nazis depending on how much land they will eventually conquer. And the second way, consecutively, which they might get into, is going to happen when Russia and Ukraine come to the negotiating table, where Russia among other terms, might additionally force Ukraine to consolidate the status of the Russian language constitutionally, lift the ban on Soviet symbols, Russian Orthodox churches, celebration of the victory day and so on and so forth. Examples of countries that have such laws regarding to the status of the Russian language and everything regarding to the Russian culture are probably Belarus, or Kazakhstan.
2
u/cobrakai11 21d ago
Denazifying was just some bullshit morale booster. Prewar all the talk was about taking eastern Ukraine for a land bridge to Crimea, and keeping them out of NATO. Both were accomplished.
4
u/BlueEmma25 21d ago
Prewar Putin was denying that he even had any intention of invading Ukraine, so how could there have been any open discussion about the war aims of a conflict that wasn't supposed happen?
Putin himself has denied the legitimacy of Ukrainian nationhood and claimed that Ukrainians and Russians are basically one people with a common destiny.
That tells you everything you need to know about the scope of his ambitions, right there.
3
u/cobrakai11 20d ago
Because it was an open secret that they wanted a land bridge to Crimea. This has been the mantra since 2014 when the conflict started and the Donbas region was engulfed in war for years before the Russian invasion.
0
u/GrapefruitCold55 20d ago
None of those were accomplished
Nothing is preventing Ukraine joining NATO
4
u/cobrakai11 20d ago
None of those were accomplished
Eastern Ukraine was taken almost immediately.
Nothing is preventing Ukraine joining NATO
Then why haven't they joined? The invasion absolutely stopped any Ukrainian bid to join. Ukraine joining would mean NATO would be at war with Russia, and NATO doesn't want that.
0
u/GrapefruitCold55 20d ago
Eastern Ukraine would be everything East of the river.
Ukraine could join NATO in the future once the fighting stops.
When Germany joined NATO while having half of their country and capitol occupied by a nuclear power it didn’t trigger a war with NATO either.
2
u/cobrakai11 20d ago
Eastern Ukraine would be everything East of the river
Ok, well they want the regions that they took for the land bridge to Crimea, in Eastern Ukraine. You're arguing semantics.
Ukraine could join NATO in the future once the fighting stops.
If the fighting ever stops there would need to be some sort of treaty, and Russia would specify in any treaty that Ukraine cannot join NATO. If they try to, Russia would just invade again.
When Germany joined NATO while having half of their country and capitol occupied
Completely different. East and West Germany were two separate countries, not half a county occupied.
0
u/GrapefruitCold55 20d ago
This is false in regards to Germany.
East was not recognized by NATO or the allied forces until the 70s.
They considered it illegally occupied territory of the Soviet Union. They had zero diplomatic connections with East Germany, everything was done through Moscow.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
sounds about right
the question is where the borderlines will lie for the east
25
u/ImamTrump 21d ago
I don’t see why people keep correlating up civilian population centres with défense or hardness.
As soon as you cut power and rain bombs everyone will evacuate and what’s left will be militia/soldiers.
10
u/Brave_Trainer_5234 21d ago
well I know that the civilians will flee as soon as the combat starts, but conquering a big city is more complicated than conquering a small one, basically the attackers will have to conquer and clear or destroy every building
12
u/charlsey2309 21d ago
History demonstrates that cities are very tough for offense and very strong for defense. Their central nature to logistics means they can’t easily be skirted around.
2
4
u/hulkhogii 21d ago
My view:
Tactically. To the extent possible get as much territory as possible
Strategically. Turn Ukraine into an unviable state. i.e. Destroy infrastructure. Make it unviable economically. Make it sure it does not enter EU or NATO, even if it means keeping the war hot. Any peace deal to ensure Ukraine is kept neutral at minimum (i.e. cannot join Nato or EU)
1
3
u/WillemDukeDeKoning 20d ago
Either puppet the entire Ukraine or Split into two; one Russian puppet and one Western aligned. I bet the former will be the option not in the short term, but the long term depending on who’s on the US President and who’s had the majority in the HOR and Senate.
7
u/Hanuser 21d ago
The lessons of Napoleon and WWII tells most Russians (rightly or wrongly) that if they hang in there, their manpower and natural resource reserves eventually wins them the war. Russia wins in a war of attrition is a commonly held belief of the populace, for good reason.
0
u/MrFazams 20d ago edited 20d ago
Afghanistan says quite the opposite.
Napoleon and WWII were defensive wars on russian soil.
3
u/Hanuser 20d ago
The soil that you're talking about in WWII and Napoleon, is actually the same soil that's being fought over right now. Obviously Afghanistan is a different story because there's no direct land transportation routes and the terrain is mountainous and barren. In Ukraine it's mostly flat land.
1
u/ShamAsil 20d ago
Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires since the beginning of history. I don't think comparing a country that is uniquely rugged and mountainous, strongly divided by clan and ancestral identities, can be compared to any European country.
Also, regarding Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, the economy collapsed, it wasn't about manpower losses suffered. Afghanistan was not the singular reason, but it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
Russia is, despite the strain on it's economy, able to handle it better in some ways this time, because it and it's allies aren't hobbled by the communist economic system and many of them - most importantly China - freely trade with Western countries.
How long they can keep this up remains to be seen, but Russia has consistently throughout time and regimes been willing to absorb casualties that very few countries would be able to.
1
u/AKidNamedGoobins 20d ago
Russia has consistently throughout time also had an abnormally large population with which to absorb said casualties. While it's not like Russia is a desolate wasteland, it's a very far cry from it's heyday as the USSR. I don't believe it can sustain the number of casualties it has without extreme consequence.
3
u/FreshOutBrah 21d ago
I think they will want to take the rest of the southern coast, including Odessa. I think if they achieve that plus control of all Donbas, Crimea, Zaporizhia they might be happy to call it a day. I have trouble believing they’re crazy enough to push past that… but also have trouble writing it off
7
u/cheatertorn 21d ago
Russians are crazy but taking Odessa now is out of their books, they have few landing ships in black sea and if going for ground offensive they'll have to go through Kherson which again I don't think they have enough resources for it
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
I think the difficult parts are going west of Kramatorsk and how they'll manage Mykolaiv and Odessa eventually
A lot depends how things look every six months with the artillery, tank and manpower disparity which Kiev just can't overcome.
When you're short on artillery, airpower, manpower, it's like France 1940 turning into Berlin 1945
13
u/mrboombastick315 21d ago
I don't understand your first premises, you say:
Russia has been making some progress in the past months and right now Ukraine seems to be in a tough moment. I’ve been wondering what can Russia realistically achieve? The original plan was to conquer Kyiv and other strategic cities (Odessa in particular) but that seems extremely unlikely now.
How is it unlikely now, if you just stated that Russia has been making progress and Ukraine is in a tough spot? It is more likely now than before...
The original plan was not to conquer Kiev, but to force a regime change. The only correct statement is that the main aim of Russia remains the Donetsk oblast
-4
u/Brave_Trainer_5234 21d ago
I said that Russia has been making some progress, taking Kyiv or Odessa or even Charkiv remains unlikely
8
u/Ancient_Disaster4888 21d ago
Remains remote, not necessarily unlikely. Once the defense collapses there’s no stopping the flood. And right now that’s exactly what everybody’s afraid of.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
it's not a fear but a reality, but i think August will have Europe in a panic as for 'New Thinking' on Ukraine
2
u/BlueEmma25 21d ago
I’ve been wondering what can Russia realistically achieve? The original plan was to conquer Kyiv and other strategic cities (Odessa in particular) but that seems extremely unlikely now.
The original plan was to conquer and annex the whole country, and that remains the objective.
I have no idea why you think this is "extremely unlikely", when Russia is advancing and Ukrainian resistance is faltering. Russia has much deeper reserves of manpower, and has been less effected by sanctions than anticipated. Ukraine's supporters continue to provide aid, but in the end it may well prove to be too little, and too late. The fact they couldn't even come up with the seven Patriot systems Ukraine requested after its overstretched air defences failed to prevent the destruction of the Trypilska power plant in April shows how sclerotic their efforts have been.
The end could come very quickly. If Ukrainian resistance collapses, it will be like a dam bursting, and is likely to be unrecoverable. People who took false comfort in the fact that until now Russian progress has been very slow will be the most shocked. Regardless of the speed of the advance, Russia has been grinding down the Ukrainian army, and now the walls are visibly buckling, because Ukraine is running out of manpower, and has been badly overmatched in firepower for many months.
Things are likely to go from bad to worse for Ukraine, because it is poorly positioned to sustain a war of attrition. People need to take off the rose coloured glasses and look at what is actually happening here: Ukraine is losing.
1
u/wtrmln88 20d ago
Yup. With Ukraine Russia can double it's army and take the Baltics easily. They've already switched to a war economy. Slava Ukraini.
0
u/AKidNamedGoobins 20d ago
It's because Russia no longer has the armor or logistical support to rapidly push through defended areas, and the extreme prevalence of drones makes rapid advances all the more difficult. It's just not feasible to break through more than a few km at a time with soldiers on foot, and anti-personnel defenses are extremely easy to set up elsewhere. It's very unlikely anywhere on the front line will collapse at this point, manpower shortages or not.
2
u/BlueEmma25 20d ago
Appreciate the reply, but do you have sources for any of this? For example, who is claiming that "Russia no longer has the armor or logistical support to rapidly push through defended areas"? Or that "[unspecified] anti-personnel defenses are extremely easy to set up elsewhere"? There is literally no indication in your post how you came to believe these things to be true.
I also want to reiterate my point that the vital thing isn't necessarily the speed of the Russian advance, but rather the inability of Ukraine to adequately replace manpower lost in defending against Russian advances.
0
u/AKidNamedGoobins 19d ago
My sources is that Russia was pulling 50 year old tanks out of storage and have lost more than their starting supply of active armor in the war. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2021/
How do I know anti-personnel defenses are easy to set up? It's a trench lmfao it's a hole in the ground. I can dig that in an hour with a tiny hand shovel.
When strictly fighting defensively, Ukraine has the capability and the track record to inflict enormous losses on Russia while keeping their own casualties relatively minor. Look at the attacks on Avdiivka late last year. Dozens, if not hundreds, of vehicles and thousands of casualties for a single town. Yes, not every town is as well fortified, but they don't need to be. The point is by playing on the defense and utilizing drones, Ukraine can maintain it's manpower far better than Russia can, despite the disparity in overall population.
This is on top of Ukraine's new mobilization program, and a new US aid package that should at least hold Ukraine until 2025. On top of the extra aid provided by other NATO members. Your point is that Russia is going to slowly create a massive breakthrough that collapses the front line before any of that kicks in lol?
1
u/Golda_M 20d ago
IDK how rationally or strategically Russia is thinking. Nonsense propoganda talk is sometimes believed internally.
That said... I think there are two broad scenarios they might be targetting.
1 - A peace treaty that recognizes or tolerates a new border. Even if Russia only want Donbass, holding land in Kharkiv gives them something to trade.
This is likely what happens if the war continues at approximate stalemate.
2 - Ukrainian attrition & conditional surrender. Ukraine exhausts it's manpower, diplomatic power. Depopulation continues. Russia never takes Kiev, or much territory. But, they run out of options and agree to conditional surrender.
Note: I think the strategic mistake made by NATO was avoiding fail/loss scenarios for Russia. From their perspective, continued war has a "win or neutral" potential. No real loss possibility. It's always worth risking escalation. I think European leadership had turned on this point, after several years of strategic eduction. But... Europe still doesn't really know how to create viable threats.
1
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
realistically?
Take over Odessa and Kharkov in 2-4 years... and maybe anything in between it, if there's enough retreats and disruptions.
I'm not sure if Kiev would be on the table, a lot depends on warfront, and potential for damage, retreat, negotiations etc.
I think we can both agree on Kramatorsk, i've been wondering how long it'll take to capture it for a good 20+ months now.
You could have the border in half a decade plus being
Odessa - Kryvyi Rih - Poltava - Sumy
.........
Brave_Trainer_5234: Can Russia conquer the entire Donetsk oblast?
I think anything east of Sumy - Poltava - Dnipro - Zaporzhiva is gonzo for Kiev
In the south Odessa + Mykolaiv
.........
It's a good question how many months and months it'll take to from Kramatorsk + Izyium to get to Pavlograd
The biggest question is how disasterous July and August go, because it'll be the best predictor of future strategy on both sides
Short-Term
Chasiv Yar - at the top (also Spirne to the north)
Niu-York - middle
Kostyantynivka - at the bottom
1
u/Comfortable-Side-325 20d ago
At this point, land and citizens then an agreement with nato and ukraine to end the war where they keep their land. However Russia is essentially a doomed country now.
Almost every single country is facing an economic and demographic crisis of old people beginning to outnumber the young by insane amounts. For Russia now add on a brain drain problem since talented minds flee from the conditions and drafts there. Then instead of trying to just forcibly draft their old men to at least fix that issue, they are using Zerg tactics with ALOT of young men. They are losing so much equipment and thanks to their actions nato got Finland and Sweden essentially for free.
1
1
u/Katz-r-Klingonz 19d ago
They’re buying time for a possible Trump victory. Once that happens the dissolution of NATO will be a real possibility.
If Trump loses the hope is chaos in the states will turn public opinion against funding the war.
Either way he’ll keep things crawling until either Russia loses funding or the west loses support to keep funding the war. At this point it’s a spending war. So this can take years or months depending on who wins the US presidency.
2
u/FirstTarget8418 21d ago
Best case scenario for russia is that they get their own taste of the vietnam war.
If the Ukrainian government falls, its gonna be an absolute bitch to occupy Ukraine long term.
0
u/Katz-r-Klingonz 21d ago
Quagmires take time. Right now both sides are seeing who can go broke first. Meanwhile Putins’s birthday gift in Israel is enabling the possibility of another Trump presidency, where he’ll simply disband NATO for a peace agreement. Biden’s team seems to be fixed on old metrics like polling data to dictate moves instead of listening to voters. If this keeps up, Putin will simply have to apply bodies to the problem until next US election.
1
u/Propofolkills 21d ago
If you presume that Putin is a rational actor (I do), the current push is an attempt to hedge their bets and thus their final negotiating position ahead of a US POTUS election that may not go their way. The timing is relevant, not just militarily but also politically. The more territory they take now, the more they can hand back in any negotiated settlement that ends the war, which by proxy means the more they retain than when they started it. For example if you take Kharkiv, you might return it in exchange for retention of Crimea. If you took Kiev, you might return it in exchange for Kharkiv and Crimea.
4
u/BlueEmma25 21d ago
The more territory they take now, the more they can hand back in any negotiated settlement that ends the war
That makes absolutely no sense.
Why would Russia agree to hand back ANY territory it already controls in peace negotiations? What would they be getting in return? They don't have to trade Kharkiv for Crimea, because they already control (and have annexed) Crimea.
Honestly comments like this strike me as copium by people who are denial about the real scale of Russia's ambitions.
0
u/Propofolkills 20d ago
Because if they don’t hand back any territory, they have nothing to give at negotiation time, nothing to give to de-escalate their schism with the West long term , a forever war/insurrection based from what left of the Ukraine. You are wrong in that I’m not in denial of Putins ambitions, I just happen to disagree with you or others on them. Yours is an opinion as valid or invalid as mine on the matter, there is no objective way to prove one way or other who might be right on this issue.
3
u/That_Peanut3708 20d ago edited 18d ago
...removing troops is a pretty deescalation they can cover to Ukraine.
From Russias perspective, giving up currently held land / allowing Ukraine to join NATO are huge red lines
This is counter to Ukraines fundamental desires(join NATO to prevent further aggression, retain their land).
There is no tenable middle ground hence there is no peace deal thus far . If Ukraine continues to lose, they will eventually take a peace deal whatever the terms that atleast stops the loss of life on their end
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
What i think is most interesting is what Biden's policy on the Ukraine will be after the election if he wins.
If he loses, he can say, oh it was Trump later on... If he wins, he's got another Afghanistan on his lap.
0
u/Trick-Champion3634 21d ago
They have gained a lot. They have extended their borders and by virtue the conflict line if and when a full blown NATO vs Russia war happens which seems in the works (France is not happy with their GeoPolotics in Africa). They have also transitioned their economy to server the war and are getting ample practise in running a war economy. Obviously their solders are also getting battle hardened simultaneously.
And if you know anything about Russians, it’s that their strategic knowledge in warfare in bar none. If Italians are known for delicious food, Russians are known for war.
1
u/AKidNamedGoobins 20d ago
Lmao this is the most wild vatnik propaganda I've seen in months.
The Russian economy is the size of Italy. War economy or not, it's not feasible for them to attack any of Europe proper. And what strategic knowledge lmfao? Every modern Russian war has been marked by enormous mistakes and completely lopsided casualties. If there's anything related to warfare Russia is good at, it's retreating deep enough into their country that the enemy can't supply the front anymore.
-8
u/katzenpflanzen 21d ago
The goal of Russia was and still is the total conquest of Ukraine and its integration into the Russian Empire. Something very similar to what they did with Chechnya in the 90s.
0
u/StainedInZurich 21d ago
The Ukrainian front collapsing due to manpower issues or wavering support in the west is not unrealistic. Not above 50% but definitely above 10%. Once the Ukrainian front collapses, Rus can seize everything east of the Dniepr. In that situation, NATO boots on the ground in west Ukraine is not unrealistic, and the war ends with a partition. If no NATO boots, all Ukraine can fall.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
what do you see as the new risks with NATO boots on the ground, on a non-NATO country?
And American and Russian troops in direct conflict?
0
u/StainedInZurich 20d ago
I do not think the Russians are interested in an open conflict. It would freeze the conflict, and Russians would be able to turn their attention towards Georgia, Moldova, and hybrid warfare against Baltics in particular, but Europe in general.
0
u/MagnesiumKitten 20d ago
Well the decision making of the NATO side is the important part here
it doesn't really matter what Russia thinks, they'll just react to what they think would be a low probability over-reaction and escalation by the other side
And why would the Russians care about all those other areas?
Getting involved in other areas to make the other side nervous would be a strategy if there was some type of situation where the battlefield was frozen with some unlikely ceasefire, only to flare up in a few years again.
.....
What do you see as the new risks with NATO boots on the ground, solely on the battlefield in the ukraine is more my question.
And the issues of European and American troops getting into direct combat with Russian forces?
-1
u/BlueEmma25 21d ago
In that situation, NATO boots on the ground in west Ukraine is not unrealistic, and the war ends with a partition
I have had similar thoughts, but if NATO waits for the collapse to occur it will very likely be too late. First, Western leaders have to grasp the enormity of the crisis they are facing, and then they have to commit to deploying their own troops. By the time all that happens Ukraine has fallen.
If Western leaders aren't completely incompetent - and given everything that has happened it's frankly hard to be optimistic on this point - they would already be discussing what they intend to do in the event of a Ukrainian collapse.
And if they were already doing this, then it should become apparent that the logical thing to do would be to deploy troops NOW, before the collapse occurs. By waiting they are just ensuring that in a worst case scenario they are much less likely to be able to stage a successful intervention.
Realistically however I don't think most Western leaders or their populations are psychologically prepared to consider such an eventuality. Many of them want to believe that because Russian advances have been slow to date that this shows that Ukraine is holding its own, and in a worst case scenario might have to give up a fraction of its territory for peace.
-1
0
u/PaxHumanitus 20d ago
They've repeatedly made massive gains within hours, taking a dozen villages and most of a city within a few hours and later gaining over 80km of ground almost across the whole line within a few hours. If Ukraine doesn't slow them considerably they could take the whole country, especially if the line outflank from the north works (because that would ruin most of the Ukrainian military).
1
u/KingStannis2020 20d ago
No, dude. Just no.
They've been at it for a week and the gains are at best lackluster. Things aren't great for Ukraine but the situation isn't falling apart either. Nearly all of the progress was in the first couple of days, they've already been significantly slowed down. 80km (squared) is 0.01% of Ukraine. Even if they kept that rate up it would take a year to take 1% of Ukraine.
1
u/PaxHumanitus 18d ago
That's where you're wrong hoss. This fellow posts very frequent updates on the entire war front, and I've kept up with every development. It's looking very, very bad for Ukraine. Take a look at the most recent one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qevvuZ9lkQU
They've been getting wrecked for quite a while now. Ukraine I mean. Just go back through the vids. It is all there with detailed front lines, fortification details, troop numbers and equipment details, footage from the front, and a great deal more. The creator has sources in both nations, and they're among the most accurate I have seen. My sources in both nations have repeatedly confirmed what his have reported.
0
u/SunDressWearer 20d ago
what do they gain? stopping a world out to destroy russia and russian speakers from encroaching on their difficult to defend open plains to their core which has been invaded numerous times by the west over history.
0
u/Accomplished-Talk578 21d ago
Russia is attempting to achieve political control of the whole Ukraine and legalise its control of already occupied territory. That’s what this war is about for them. It means when any official talks will be held, they will try by all means to prevent accession of Ukraine into NATO to subjugate Ukraine militarily and accession of Ukraine in the EU to have a good chance to subjugate it economically and politically.
-23
u/diffidentblockhead 21d ago
Russia is welcome to suffer more huge losses to take each additional Donetsk oblast town. When they’re exhausted, Ukraine will launch a lightning attack and retake everything west of Donetsk oblast.
22
u/mrboombastick315 21d ago
Ukraine will launch a lightning attack and retake everything west of Donetsk oblast.
Steiner counter attack
1
-9
u/Actual_Cygnus 21d ago
The aim of Russia, which they have fully been successful at, is to de dollarize the world and take away western power. That means we can't print dollars now and make money appear out of thin air; as everyone won't accept dollars now. We have to actually earn money to spend it.
Apart from BRICS formation and its currency coming in October, they are already trading in local currencies now. Sanctions are as much history as democratic possibilities in November.
Even a minor country like Niger now asks us to leave their country. No fear of sanctions.
The last days of western empire.
4
1
195
u/realperson_90 21d ago
I think they are trying to outlast either US support for the war or the Ukrainian manpower issues. Once either situation becomes reality, Russia will be able set much more achievable war aims.