I remember a lecture by LF on Strategy where he stressed the need to give a defeated yet still dangerous enemy a ‘way out’. Not to do so with Putin would be a folly as great as his in launching the invasion in the first place.
Kamil Galeev disagrees. He feels that if Putin is given a way out, he will harden Russia in to a diminished but dangerous foe. Something like a bigger Iran with a ton of nukes.
So the pressure must be kept on if not applied even more.
A ton of mid-level bureaucrats can see where this is going and are more focused on escaping Russia right now than helping the country run/carrying out Putin’s crazy plan. If the middle level of government and key industries as well as highly skilled technical professionals like engineers and IT people essentially desert the war effort en masse (escape Russia) while strikes rise up among the working class, the people at the top will have a heavier incentive to try to remove Putin while the people defending his personal safety will have less incentive to defend him.
If he is given an out, Putin will harden Russia in to a giant fascist rogue state (an Iran that can end life on earth) with a ton of nukes.
So the key is to give those mid-level managers and skilled technical professionals an out but not Putin. That proposal I heard of the EU offering Russians with certain skills an EU work visa should be implemented straight away.
As we can see from Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Iran and North Korea, a ruthless leader can stay in power indefinitely under the harshest of sanctions, while his people suffer.
And as he grows weaker. The problem is, if you lift sanctions, those countries get to cause as much harm as Putin did in Ukraine by invading other countries.
The risk of this conflict escalating to at least the limited use of nuclear weapons is quite high if things don’t start going well for Putin. The West may ultimately have to accept some kind of Russian victory for the short to medium turn. In time the Putin era will come to an end (he is 70). Better to be patient for a decade or so than risk global catastrophe.
No. Such risk was never high. Ask yourself any reason what at all it could switch to nuclear, you can't find a single reason.
The West had nothing to do with it, first heavy weapons came to Ukraine around the April 1, 2022, i.e. Ukraine was fighting only using their own weapons (some antitank launchers were ok, but not too much) and soldiers.
Attributing anything to the West is like the nuclear terrorism spread by such actors as Sen. Mike Lee and David Sacks -- were baseless, and had inly one aim: deprive Ukraine of real help from the West.
I still think the conditions exist for limited nuclear use in Ukraine (probably direct western involvement routing Russian troops). Putin wants to dominate or destroy what he cannot dominate. If he could get away with nuclear use I think he’d consider it. But as of now he doesn’t need to and he doesn’t want to alienate China or Trump. Of course none of this should stop the west pressing on with weapons supplies and sanctions. Hopefully an attritional squeeze will bring him to the his senses for serious negotiations to end the conflict.
Total misunderstanding. Imagine the USA/West gave Ukraine 10 HIMARS in April 2022 instead of July 2022, and 200 ATACMS missiles in August 2022, not 40 such missiles in October 2023-October 2024. When there were only 200k Z-orcs vs 400k Ukrainian soldiers in Summer-Autumn 2022 -- they could have cleared the entire mainland Ukraine by end of 2022.
Tellingly Putin told an interviewer many years ago he learnt when chasing rats in the degraded block he lived, that nobody should corner a foe and leave him without any way out. Remember he does not care about his population much, that he is far from defeated even if he has not gotten his war aims and that he can resort to his last ressource -nuclear weapons- if he feels very threatened. And yes, as Mr. Freedman pointed out, war is an uncertain business.
No, Putin never felt threatened. What a nonsense, total ignorance of what Russia is.
You believed that nuclear bluff. You eat that piece of propaganda while believing that you were so rational, like if you did some deep research and analysis of what Putin's intentions were. Many lie you still don't get that you were fed a baseless bluster, not facts, from Moscow, amplified by such nuclear terrorists as Sen. Mike Lee and David Sacks who were spreading it for 3 years and stopped only when Ukraine invaded Russia in the Kursk region in Aug 2024 -- of course, for the first time since 1941, Russia was invaded by a foreign military and Russia does not use nukes!!!
Ask yourself any reason what at all it could trigger nukes' really, and won't be able to find a single reason.
Imagine now that the USA/West gave Ukraine 10x HIMARS in April 2022 instead of July 2022, and 200x ATACMS missiles in August 2022, not 40 such missiles in October 2023-October 2024. When there were only 200k Z-orcs vs 400k Ukrainian soldiers in Summer-Autumn 2022. With such arsenal, Ukrainians could clear the entire mainland Ukraine by end of 2022.
I can't help but be struck by the crashing historical irony of Russian forces becoming bogged down by over-extended supply lines crippled by asymmetric warfare. This is precisely how the Russians helped kill Napoleon's failed campaign Back in the Day. Like many autocrats, Putin seems to have decided that he could re-shape reality. But that only works on the Internet.
Mistakes of the Iraq war, included a complete lack of post war planning - 'if you take it, you own it' - including preventing and/or dealing with the resultant insurgency. Appears, Russia is making the same mistakes. Look at how the Ukrainian People fought back in 2013/14 around Maiden. Even if Russia 'takes' the country, that is what it faces, but, not, this time, by unarmed civilians, but trained/armed professionals, supplemented by those same, now, civilian/soldiers, armed and equipped from the West, and possibly operating out of neighbouring countries. Putin might just have created a long-term quagmire in Ukraine, along with a crashing economy at home.
One more mistake of the Iraq war: because we did a pre-emptive strike ("we can fight 'em there, or fight 'em here!") it gave other nations the idea that they can get away with it, too. If Putin winds up in a "long-term quagmire, that'll replace the revenue from Afghanistan for our all-consuming defense industry.
You're not ascribing enough agency to others. Putin may have invaded Ukraine regardless. Ironically, the Russian military regarded the US invasion of Iraq as an own goal.
Vladimir Putin’s pointless war has already led to thousands of people losing their lives, suffering from life-changing injuries or left traumatised by their experiences, lost internet connections, unable to buy take home food,..... What a useless, pointless number.
Thank you for your consistently lucid analysis. Yes, it's critically important to have frequent assessments of Putin's state of mind, a strong reason for world leaders to have very long conversations with him. Macron's hour and a half chat was valuable for this reason and I hope the experts were monitoring carefully to track his likely changing psychological state. I seriously wonder if Putin has an accurate picture of what's going on right now in Ukraine especially among his forces.
To avoid a disasterous defeat, Putin advisor must now drives to Campaign for an acceptable End State for Russia and Ukraine. Allowing Putin to achieve it meant the West is sincere to end the suffering of Ukranian. Denying it just meant that the West is keen on removing Putin from Russia.
China wins whether Russia wins or loses. Strong Russia, better ally. Weak Russia, more leverage. The only way China loses, is if Russia goes nuclear and screws up the world. As China apparently approved of the invasion, the prohibition on nuclear escalation was no doubt part of the deal.
It's always hard to predict the future. But I think things will be largely over by the end of March, one way or the other. And since I don't think Russia is going to take Kyiv by then, it will be a loss.
He can bring in other fighters, but that doesn't mean they'll be much good. He's losing material as well as men at an unsustainable pace, and Syria certainly won't be donating good military hardware to Russia (generally, it's the other way around).
This is a good analysis. I fear though that the closing paragraph misses a critically relevant and important question - Even if Putin can accept his minimum success will the West accept that?
It's hard to see how the West could accept Putin remaining in power now. The war crimes committed in his war have been on every TV, every phone, every screen. Public opinion in the West isn't likely to be satisfied with Putin avoiding the Hague. Surely Putin sees this too? Thus, the corner he has painted himself into is even smaller, and fraught with risk if he decides his only option is indeed the nuclear one.
Yes that's fair. It is difficult to see how Putin gets accepted back into polite society! One of Putin's problems is that he will still need any deal agreed with Zelensky to be conditional on sanctions being lifted.
Don't know about short order for European purchases of Russian natural gas. The figure I've frequently seen cited is that Russia supplies about 40% of Western Europe's natural gas. Even independent of questions about overall global supply, putting in place the relevant infrastructure is likely a several years long process. Namely infrastructure such as European LNG import terminals, as well as export terminals elsewhere in the world. Hence pushback such as these comments from Scholz - https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-rejects-calls-for-banning-russian-oil-and-gas/
I think we're looking at the wrong map. There is mounting evidence that the supplies arriving to the front, if they get there, are in extremely poor condition. The intel I've seen talks about how poorly the advanced weapons have been maintained. What if Russia is a paper tiger? What if all they have left are what's already arrived at the front and nothing else. The real map to decipher is the internal economic map. What happened to the industries that were built to maintain this army? Do they even exist? Is this really the last ditch effort of a collapsing, dying economy to demonstrate strength and hold on the fallacy of superiority and strength. If my hedge fund managing brother comes over drunk claiming I stole his house, I understand there's something deeply wrong with the picture. Now he's got a gun. If we get out of this ok, life is going to be very different for both of us.
Could it be that the wealthy oligarchs amassed such fortunes by depleting the very industries they were supposed to pay for? Maybe this is why everything is broken down, no good, too old, needing upgrades etc. Those 700 million dollar yachts tell the tale of the industries they bilked, stole from etc, and now when they need it most they don't have it because it's all tied up in the bank accounts of those very oligarchs, Putin included with his billion dollar palace.
I saw a video of a Ukrainian Howitzer in action, next to it was a stack of at least 80 spent shell casings and the loader was working a the sustained fire rate. When I was trained in artillery tactics during the cold war we trained to "shot and scoot" because we expected enemy air attack to follow quickly. The battery in that video expected no air attack at all.
Could the alleged push back from Chinese due to the Olympics somehow caused this (well, been one of the many causes)? Soldiers had supplies for X days, now they had to be stretched for 17+ days...
When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine I was shocked as when George W. Bush invaded Iraq. In cases like this, even if you win, you lose. And Russia seems unlikely to win, as this excellent essay points out.
So what do we do? That will be the test. Victors tend to punish rather than rehabilitate. If we can avoid the urge to punish, we may avoid too much damage. Let's hope we're wise.
Eh. Why does anyone have to lose patience? If neither side relents, Russia gets stuck in a quagmire with a basketcase economy. They'd be late stage USSR again, except with Ukraine as the millstone instead of Afghanistan.
The UA is about to be supplied with modern, over-the-horizon anti-armor missiles and anti-personnel systems that loiter and dispense sub-munitions, as well as shaped charges. Nato designation: switchblade and B-BAM's. Complete game changers, in the way that stinger manpads were. Covertly, of course.
These articles are fantastic, thank you for writing them. I’ve personally been wondering what defeat of the Russian forces actually looks like. Is it they simply stop fighting or lose the ability to fight? What sort of percentage of their fighting force needs to be destroyed / put out of action for that to be a possibility? If Ukraine forces can stay in the fight it seems to me they have a chance of inflicting an actual military defeat on Russia (stopping their ability to fight, forcing a retreat). The modern anti-tank / air defence missiles that we’ve supplied to Ukraine seem to be working brilliantly so far.
I think Russia will be defeated outright in the North. The advance in to Kiev is, as someone described it, now “a 60km POW camp”. Nearly everything motorized there must now be out of both fuel and battery power. And the weather is turning colder again, dropping well below freezing at night while the Russians aren’t kitted out for a deep winter war. And the soldiers almost certainly don’t have adequate food. So a replay of the Winter War in Finland where entire Soviet divisions were cut off and starved and froze to death in Finnish forests. Russia still has some reserve paratroopers in Belarus but being light infantry, they would be chopped up if they were dropped around Kiev now. In the North east of the Dnieper, the UA will destroy logistics convoys and strand any Russian units who venture far from the borders of Russia even if Putin sends in crappy reservists who haven’t been training for a war with Soviet-era relics.
The South is more problematic, but due to logistic issues, Russia will really only be able to permanently hold territory within a short range of ports/Crimea/Russia.
Unfortunately, it seems the Russians have forced the Ukrainians to retreat from Hostomel, Bucha and Irpin in the last day or so. Parts of that convoy may still be viable.
I think you’re basically right. But that, to me, leads to stand off / stalemate, unless Ukrainian forces can mount an effective counter attack in the south and drive the Russians out. That seems a bit unlikely? Another frozen conflict.
Yes, most likely at least for as long as Putin can last. Unlike the other tiny frozen conflicts, Ukraine is the size of Texas/France with the borders to match. Stationing sufficient armed troops and hardware on even half that border would take a huge amount of Russia’s resources all while the substantially cut-off economy is cratering and anyone with any skills, a way out, and half a brain is trying to escape this future fascist version of Iran. Expect mass strikes by the working class too as their rubles devalue. And unlike in the other frozen conflicts, the Western Alliance will be pumping a ton of arms and money in to Ukraine.
Imagine now that the USA/West gave Ukraine 10x HIMARS in April 2022 instead of July 2022, and 200x ATACMS missiles in August 2022, not 40 such missiles in October 2023-October 2024. When there were only 200k Z-orcs vs 400k Ukrainian soldiers in Summer-Autumn 2022. With such arsenal, Ukrainians could clear the entire mainland Ukraine by end of 2022.
I remember a lecture by LF on Strategy where he stressed the need to give a defeated yet still dangerous enemy a ‘way out’. Not to do so with Putin would be a folly as great as his in launching the invasion in the first place.
Kamil Galeev disagrees. He feels that if Putin is given a way out, he will harden Russia in to a diminished but dangerous foe. Something like a bigger Iran with a ton of nukes.
So the pressure must be kept on if not applied even more.
A ton of mid-level bureaucrats can see where this is going and are more focused on escaping Russia right now than helping the country run/carrying out Putin’s crazy plan. If the middle level of government and key industries as well as highly skilled technical professionals like engineers and IT people essentially desert the war effort en masse (escape Russia) while strikes rise up among the working class, the people at the top will have a heavier incentive to try to remove Putin while the people defending his personal safety will have less incentive to defend him.
If he is given an out, Putin will harden Russia in to a giant fascist rogue state (an Iran that can end life on earth) with a ton of nukes.
So the key is to give those mid-level managers and skilled technical professionals an out but not Putin. That proposal I heard of the EU offering Russians with certain skills an EU work visa should be implemented straight away.
As we can see from Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Iran and North Korea, a ruthless leader can stay in power indefinitely under the harshest of sanctions, while his people suffer.
And as he grows weaker. The problem is, if you lift sanctions, those countries get to cause as much harm as Putin did in Ukraine by invading other countries.
The risk of this conflict escalating to at least the limited use of nuclear weapons is quite high if things don’t start going well for Putin. The West may ultimately have to accept some kind of Russian victory for the short to medium turn. In time the Putin era will come to an end (he is 70). Better to be patient for a decade or so than risk global catastrophe.
No. Such risk was never high. Ask yourself any reason what at all it could switch to nuclear, you can't find a single reason.
The West had nothing to do with it, first heavy weapons came to Ukraine around the April 1, 2022, i.e. Ukraine was fighting only using their own weapons (some antitank launchers were ok, but not too much) and soldiers.
Attributing anything to the West is like the nuclear terrorism spread by such actors as Sen. Mike Lee and David Sacks -- were baseless, and had inly one aim: deprive Ukraine of real help from the West.
You had eaten that nuclear bluff.
I still think the conditions exist for limited nuclear use in Ukraine (probably direct western involvement routing Russian troops). Putin wants to dominate or destroy what he cannot dominate. If he could get away with nuclear use I think he’d consider it. But as of now he doesn’t need to and he doesn’t want to alienate China or Trump. Of course none of this should stop the west pressing on with weapons supplies and sanctions. Hopefully an attritional squeeze will bring him to the his senses for serious negotiations to end the conflict.
Total misunderstanding. Imagine the USA/West gave Ukraine 10 HIMARS in April 2022 instead of July 2022, and 200 ATACMS missiles in August 2022, not 40 such missiles in October 2023-October 2024. When there were only 200k Z-orcs vs 400k Ukrainian soldiers in Summer-Autumn 2022 -- they could have cleared the entire mainland Ukraine by end of 2022.
Tellingly Putin told an interviewer many years ago he learnt when chasing rats in the degraded block he lived, that nobody should corner a foe and leave him without any way out. Remember he does not care about his population much, that he is far from defeated even if he has not gotten his war aims and that he can resort to his last ressource -nuclear weapons- if he feels very threatened. And yes, as Mr. Freedman pointed out, war is an uncertain business.
No, Putin never felt threatened. What a nonsense, total ignorance of what Russia is.
You believed that nuclear bluff. You eat that piece of propaganda while believing that you were so rational, like if you did some deep research and analysis of what Putin's intentions were. Many lie you still don't get that you were fed a baseless bluster, not facts, from Moscow, amplified by such nuclear terrorists as Sen. Mike Lee and David Sacks who were spreading it for 3 years and stopped only when Ukraine invaded Russia in the Kursk region in Aug 2024 -- of course, for the first time since 1941, Russia was invaded by a foreign military and Russia does not use nukes!!!
Ask yourself any reason what at all it could trigger nukes' really, and won't be able to find a single reason.
Imagine now that the USA/West gave Ukraine 10x HIMARS in April 2022 instead of July 2022, and 200x ATACMS missiles in August 2022, not 40 such missiles in October 2023-October 2024. When there were only 200k Z-orcs vs 400k Ukrainian soldiers in Summer-Autumn 2022. With such arsenal, Ukrainians could clear the entire mainland Ukraine by end of 2022.
I can't help but be struck by the crashing historical irony of Russian forces becoming bogged down by over-extended supply lines crippled by asymmetric warfare. This is precisely how the Russians helped kill Napoleon's failed campaign Back in the Day. Like many autocrats, Putin seems to have decided that he could re-shape reality. But that only works on the Internet.
Mistakes of the Iraq war, included a complete lack of post war planning - 'if you take it, you own it' - including preventing and/or dealing with the resultant insurgency. Appears, Russia is making the same mistakes. Look at how the Ukrainian People fought back in 2013/14 around Maiden. Even if Russia 'takes' the country, that is what it faces, but, not, this time, by unarmed civilians, but trained/armed professionals, supplemented by those same, now, civilian/soldiers, armed and equipped from the West, and possibly operating out of neighbouring countries. Putin might just have created a long-term quagmire in Ukraine, along with a crashing economy at home.
One more mistake of the Iraq war: because we did a pre-emptive strike ("we can fight 'em there, or fight 'em here!") it gave other nations the idea that they can get away with it, too. If Putin winds up in a "long-term quagmire, that'll replace the revenue from Afghanistan for our all-consuming defense industry.
You're not ascribing enough agency to others. Putin may have invaded Ukraine regardless. Ironically, the Russian military regarded the US invasion of Iraq as an own goal.
Of course each country is responsible for its own actions, but we haven't walked the walk of a nation that respects the sovereignty of others.
You're right, I'm afraid. We've let this get away from us.. but can we pull it back? Can we reform ourselves? I think there's still a chance.
Vladimir Putin’s pointless war has already led to thousands of people losing their lives, suffering from life-changing injuries or left traumatised by their experiences, lost internet connections, unable to buy take home food,..... What a useless, pointless number.
Please don’t interrupt the bloodless discussion of diplomatic theory going on here with a recitation of actual human suffering.
Thank you for your consistently lucid analysis. Yes, it's critically important to have frequent assessments of Putin's state of mind, a strong reason for world leaders to have very long conversations with him. Macron's hour and a half chat was valuable for this reason and I hope the experts were monitoring carefully to track his likely changing psychological state. I seriously wonder if Putin has an accurate picture of what's going on right now in Ukraine especially among his forces.
To avoid a disasterous defeat, Putin advisor must now drives to Campaign for an acceptable End State for Russia and Ukraine. Allowing Putin to achieve it meant the West is sincere to end the suffering of Ukranian. Denying it just meant that the West is keen on removing Putin from Russia.
To me it sounds very unlikely that Putin will be "removed" within weeks.
And as long as Putin has the opportunity to prevent a defeat he will do so by any means.
For example there are indications that Putin is recruiting Syrian fighters (https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-recruiting-syrians-for-urban-combat-in-ukraine-u-s-officials-say-11646606234), also he still can involve forces like the Wagner group or Kadyrovsky troups from Chechenya.
And when Putin finds himself standing with his back to the wall he might use tactical nukes rather than admit defeat.
So I can't really see an scenario how the next weeks could bring an end of the military escalation.
China wins whether Russia wins or loses. Strong Russia, better ally. Weak Russia, more leverage. The only way China loses, is if Russia goes nuclear and screws up the world. As China apparently approved of the invasion, the prohibition on nuclear escalation was no doubt part of the deal.
It's always hard to predict the future. But I think things will be largely over by the end of March, one way or the other. And since I don't think Russia is going to take Kyiv by then, it will be a loss.
He can bring in other fighters, but that doesn't mean they'll be much good. He's losing material as well as men at an unsustainable pace, and Syria certainly won't be donating good military hardware to Russia (generally, it's the other way around).
This is a good analysis. I fear though that the closing paragraph misses a critically relevant and important question - Even if Putin can accept his minimum success will the West accept that?
It's hard to see how the West could accept Putin remaining in power now. The war crimes committed in his war have been on every TV, every phone, every screen. Public opinion in the West isn't likely to be satisfied with Putin avoiding the Hague. Surely Putin sees this too? Thus, the corner he has painted himself into is even smaller, and fraught with risk if he decides his only option is indeed the nuclear one.
Yes that's fair. It is difficult to see how Putin gets accepted back into polite society! One of Putin's problems is that he will still need any deal agreed with Zelensky to be conditional on sanctions being lifted.
Is he not still accepted to a degree? Europe still willing to purchase gas even now.
In all probability, this too will go in short order. Dock crews are already starting to refuse to unload Russian oil from tankers.
Don't know about short order for European purchases of Russian natural gas. The figure I've frequently seen cited is that Russia supplies about 40% of Western Europe's natural gas. Even independent of questions about overall global supply, putting in place the relevant infrastructure is likely a several years long process. Namely infrastructure such as European LNG import terminals, as well as export terminals elsewhere in the world. Hence pushback such as these comments from Scholz - https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-rejects-calls-for-banning-russian-oil-and-gas/
Oil seems a bit different because it's more fungible where barrels go worldwide. But Russia's combined exports of oil and refined products are about 7 million barrels per day, and I don't think anyone sees spare capacity to replace that in the short-run. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-spikes-2008-highs-us-europe-mull-russian-oil-import-ban-iran-delay-2022-03-07/
T'will hurt, but they will do it. Freedom has a price.
I don't think he can count on that as long as he and his are still around.
His fellow oligarchs might not agree. They have a different option in order to return to polite society.
I think we're looking at the wrong map. There is mounting evidence that the supplies arriving to the front, if they get there, are in extremely poor condition. The intel I've seen talks about how poorly the advanced weapons have been maintained. What if Russia is a paper tiger? What if all they have left are what's already arrived at the front and nothing else. The real map to decipher is the internal economic map. What happened to the industries that were built to maintain this army? Do they even exist? Is this really the last ditch effort of a collapsing, dying economy to demonstrate strength and hold on the fallacy of superiority and strength. If my hedge fund managing brother comes over drunk claiming I stole his house, I understand there's something deeply wrong with the picture. Now he's got a gun. If we get out of this ok, life is going to be very different for both of us.
Russia definitely isn't a great power. Problem is that Putin had great power delusions. He could well end up like Nicholas II.
Could it be that the wealthy oligarchs amassed such fortunes by depleting the very industries they were supposed to pay for? Maybe this is why everything is broken down, no good, too old, needing upgrades etc. Those 700 million dollar yachts tell the tale of the industries they bilked, stole from etc, and now when they need it most they don't have it because it's all tied up in the bank accounts of those very oligarchs, Putin included with his billion dollar palace.
I saw a video of a Ukrainian Howitzer in action, next to it was a stack of at least 80 spent shell casings and the loader was working a the sustained fire rate. When I was trained in artillery tactics during the cold war we trained to "shot and scoot" because we expected enemy air attack to follow quickly. The battery in that video expected no air attack at all.
Could the alleged push back from Chinese due to the Olympics somehow caused this (well, been one of the many causes)? Soldiers had supplies for X days, now they had to be stretched for 17+ days...
When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine I was shocked as when George W. Bush invaded Iraq. In cases like this, even if you win, you lose. And Russia seems unlikely to win, as this excellent essay points out.
So what do we do? That will be the test. Victors tend to punish rather than rehabilitate. If we can avoid the urge to punish, we may avoid too much damage. Let's hope we're wise.
Who will lose patience first? Putin, or the West? Betting that Putin will give in first seems like...a long shot.
Eh. Why does anyone have to lose patience? If neither side relents, Russia gets stuck in a quagmire with a basketcase economy. They'd be late stage USSR again, except with Ukraine as the millstone instead of Afghanistan.
The UA is about to be supplied with modern, over-the-horizon anti-armor missiles and anti-personnel systems that loiter and dispense sub-munitions, as well as shaped charges. Nato designation: switchblade and B-BAM's. Complete game changers, in the way that stinger manpads were. Covertly, of course.
These articles are fantastic, thank you for writing them. I’ve personally been wondering what defeat of the Russian forces actually looks like. Is it they simply stop fighting or lose the ability to fight? What sort of percentage of their fighting force needs to be destroyed / put out of action for that to be a possibility? If Ukraine forces can stay in the fight it seems to me they have a chance of inflicting an actual military defeat on Russia (stopping their ability to fight, forcing a retreat). The modern anti-tank / air defence missiles that we’ve supplied to Ukraine seem to be working brilliantly so far.
I think Russia will be defeated outright in the North. The advance in to Kiev is, as someone described it, now “a 60km POW camp”. Nearly everything motorized there must now be out of both fuel and battery power. And the weather is turning colder again, dropping well below freezing at night while the Russians aren’t kitted out for a deep winter war. And the soldiers almost certainly don’t have adequate food. So a replay of the Winter War in Finland where entire Soviet divisions were cut off and starved and froze to death in Finnish forests. Russia still has some reserve paratroopers in Belarus but being light infantry, they would be chopped up if they were dropped around Kiev now. In the North east of the Dnieper, the UA will destroy logistics convoys and strand any Russian units who venture far from the borders of Russia even if Putin sends in crappy reservists who haven’t been training for a war with Soviet-era relics.
The South is more problematic, but due to logistic issues, Russia will really only be able to permanently hold territory within a short range of ports/Crimea/Russia.
Unfortunately, it seems the Russians have forced the Ukrainians to retreat from Hostomel, Bucha and Irpin in the last day or so. Parts of that convoy may still be viable.
They keep fighting over that area. And no convoy is viable without fuel and battery power. So how are they going to get that to the convoy?
I think you’re basically right. But that, to me, leads to stand off / stalemate, unless Ukrainian forces can mount an effective counter attack in the south and drive the Russians out. That seems a bit unlikely? Another frozen conflict.
Yes, most likely at least for as long as Putin can last. Unlike the other tiny frozen conflicts, Ukraine is the size of Texas/France with the borders to match. Stationing sufficient armed troops and hardware on even half that border would take a huge amount of Russia’s resources all while the substantially cut-off economy is cratering and anyone with any skills, a way out, and half a brain is trying to escape this future fascist version of Iran. Expect mass strikes by the working class too as their rubles devalue. And unlike in the other frozen conflicts, the Western Alliance will be pumping a ton of arms and money in to Ukraine.
Imagine now that the USA/West gave Ukraine 10x HIMARS in April 2022 instead of July 2022, and 200x ATACMS missiles in August 2022, not 40 such missiles in October 2023-October 2024. When there were only 200k Z-orcs vs 400k Ukrainian soldiers in Summer-Autumn 2022. With such arsenal, Ukrainians could clear the entire mainland Ukraine by end of 2022.