Quote (bogie160 @ 30 Jun 2024 01:13)
Is there an actual thesis in support of an eventual Ukrainian victory? I suppose if Russia impromptu collapses, but otherwise, as you pointed out, Russia can simply shelter in the multi-level defensive line they've constructed across occupied Ukraine. If NATO does become involved such that the front-line is collapsing, I expect we'll see tactical nuclear warfare for the first time in human history. The Russian government has gone all-in, at this point Putin is right to say that Russia cannot lose the war and continue to exist as a unified state.
The outcome space for this conflict is trinary, not binary:
- Ukrainian victory: fending off the Russians and gaining back at the very least a majority of the territory they lost since Feb 22.
- Russian victory: either capturing all of Ukraine's territory to the east of the Dnieper, leaving the remainder of Ukraine a crippled rump state; OR successfully installing a Russia-friendly puppet regime in Kyiv again.
- Varying degrees of stalemate: the conflict freezes somewhere in between the two aforementioned outcomes. For example, if the conflict froze along the current lines, and these lines eventually became enshrined in a peace treaty, then Ukraine would have retained its sovereignty, could eventually join the EU and forge some kind of ties with NATO (even if an outright membership isn't possible). On the flip side, Russia would have taken a significant chunk of Ukraine's territory, resources, population and industry, and gained strategic ground in terms of controlling Crimea and the Sea of Azov.
I disagree with the notion that a Russian victory is inevitable, but this does not mean that I consider an Ukrainian victory to be a likely outcome.
Quote (Goomshill @ 30 Jun 2024 00:40)
The non-breakout at Toretsk is an interesting case in this war that kind of illustrates the Russian strategy
Apparently there was a bungled troop rotation by the Ukrainian side, leaving a basically undefended hole in their line at the city of Toretsk. The report is that several Azov battalions were ordered to plug the gap and refused their orders. Which is certainly a big note, if true. But also notably Russia did not try to surge into the gap where they'd be exposed, instead taking the incremental small outer villages like they had been doing anyway. Now maybe they feared a trap or don't want a deep salient, but either way its clear Russia simply does not want rapid gains or breakouts or other decisive blows right now. Its clearly their strategy to grind down Ukraine in a war of attrition and they are committed to it.
If true, this indicates a change of strategy. Previously, the Russians brute forced their way into cities like Sieverodonetsk, Bakhmut and Avdiivka, and very recently tried some sort of blitz on Kharkiv. They got a bloody nose during that blitz, so it's plausible that they pivoted to a slower-paced, less greedy strategy.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 29 2024 07:31pm