How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[THH149]

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

I still think the WSJ commentator is getting it right:

"The Ukraine incursion will end with a whimper:

• Hostilities will end after Putin has secured the land bridge in eastern Ukraine.
• NATO countries will breath a sigh of relief, but holler about how Russia will have to 'pay' for the incursion.
• Biden will boast that his leadership was successful.
• Russia will pay lip service to reparations, but cease after the sanctions are removed.
• Germany, Italy, Turkey and other countries will revert back to energy reliance on Russia.
• NOTHING will change, save Putin getting more valuable land, ala Crimea.
• Putin will begin planning for 'annexing' the rest of Ukraine."

Also adding that Russia and China will continue to chip away at the US dollar's dominance and nations like SA, UAE, India and others will support the "new world order".

Plus you can add to that list a frozen conflict along the Kherson Oblast to Karkiv Oblast, well beyond Donetsk and Luhansk, with fake referendums in those wholly occupied oblasts transferring themselves to RF (over Ukr objections and not internationally recognised) before November this year, plus I guess a ten year program to reform the RA into something more than an artillery park with the money it gets from selling resources to China and India etc, while it prepares for the next war. Putin will die an old man in office.

Not what I'd like to see obv. but what I think is most likely.

[Haiduk]

Soldier writes, Russians probably withdrew from Bucha and Hostomel, the silence on the front. Drone recon showed as if Russian positions are abanoded. However our troops didn't yet begun to advance

 

 

[Haiduk]

The fan of Warhammer

And his spoils.... Looks like BTR belonged to some recon unit, armed with Val rifles

Edited March 31, 2022 by Haiduk

[Taranis]

37 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Today Ukraianian Air-assault Command officially claimed UKR forces liberated several villages east from Huliaypole in Zaporizhzhia oblast: Zatyshshia, Vesele, Zelenyi Hai, Chervone, Malynivka. About liberation of Malynivka was reported in social media already several days ago.

Air-assault Command also issued some photos of destroyed Russian vehicles and captured gears

  

But clashes on Zaporizhzhia direction is enough tough and UKR forces also have a losses in vehicles. Here is a video of Russians, claimed filmed in this oblast, probably for previous days, when they could take some land on this direction. Looks like mostly National Guard armor, including BTR-4E (I doubt that 92nd mech.brigade, equipped with BTR-4E, involved near Kharkiv could move even a company here). Also damaged captured Varta MRAP, armored car Cougar, BTR-70, HMMWV  and T-72AMT

 

 

Couldn't be BTR-4E from 80 Air Assault Brigade ? I've read somewhere that Air Assault units had some BTR-4E and BTR-3 priority (like 25 Airmobile and 95 Air Assault Brigade)

[Rokko]

Interesting take by a DNR recon guy on the situation in Mariupol from two days ago. I found it odd that he says there are no Russian forces, since I thought the 150th MRD was also fighting in Mariupol, but maybe he is just referring to his sector.

[Kraft]

14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is one reason why the US Army determined it's personnel replacement system for WW2 was not good.  The system took individual soldiers from a national pool and fed them one at a time into combat units as replacements.  They were often killed in combat before the rest of the unit did as much as remember their names.  There's been a lot written about this from the perspective of the combat units and it is all bad.

I dug this up from Page 190 but I wanted to add that I talked to an old man who served in WW2 some years ago who told a similar story from the German side.

In late 1944, the unit he got drafted into called the "newcomers" a special, morbid term that I forgot and refused to remember their names until they managed to survive for a week or more. Even after all these years that was one of the things he remembered very much, must do wonders for morale and also shows the horrible survival rate of inexperienced troops.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Kraft

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

I still think the WSJ commentator is getting it right:

"The Ukraine incursion will end with a whimper:

• Hostilities will end after Putin has secured the land bridge in eastern Ukraine.
• NATO countries will breath a sigh of relief, but holler about how Russia will have to 'pay' for the incursion.
• Biden will boast that his leadership was successful.
• Russia will pay lip service to reparations, but cease after the sanctions are removed.
• Germany, Italy, Turkey and other countries will revert back to energy reliance on Russia.
• NOTHING will change, save Putin getting more valuable land, ala Crimea.
• Putin will begin planning for 'annexing' the rest of Ukraine."

Also adding that Russia and China will continue to chip away at the US dollar's dominance and nations like SA, UAE, India and others will support the "new world order".

I think it's possible that the war will end with a "whimper", but I don't see sanctions lifting anyway. And I don't see countries such as Germany going back to being reliant on Russian gas.

There is already an energy transition going on, away from fossil fuels. Putin has provided Western politicians with very good arguments that gas is not just wrong from a climate perspective, but that continuing to use gas is the same as enabling Putin's evil crimes.

So, even if the war just fizzles out or goes to slow-burn, then I think that the end result will still be that Russia becomes an impoverished pariah-state.

However, since much of this is about Putin as a person, if Putin is no longer the leader of Russia, then I think things could change very quickly back to sanctions being lifted and the gas flowing again. A clever move from Putin could be to pretend to step down as president, and then let one of his puppet cronies take over, tell Europe all the nice things we want to hear, get sanctions lifted, relations normalised... and then in five years time, get back on the throne.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, sross112 said:

I say Ukraine needs to do everything it can to not let Mariupol fall.

Yes, this is the critical battle that Ukraine has to continue indefinitely if not "win" - whatever "win" means in a dismembered nation.  So long as the Russian land bridge to Crimea does not exist Putin will have a harder time claiming victory. 

Right now, apparently Putin's ratings in Russia are going up fast.  We in the west have to appreciate that we are just as manipulated by our own propaganda as the Russians are.  

Ukraine has to to be able to maintain its struggle, especially holding onto Mariupol, to have any chance of humiliating Putin.  To survive and prosper over the past decades since the fall of the USSR, Putin had to be very smart/cunning and also have planned well for his own survival.  

 

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, mosuri said:

Did not see this mentioned yet. Lawyers are getting involved ...

12 Rosgvardia troops that refused to participate in the invasion were fired from their jobs; their lawyer is now arguing there is no basis for the sacking, as officially Russia is not at war.

Google translation of the article in Finnish at

https://www-hs-fi.translate.goog/ulkomaat/art-2000008716782.html?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

LOL.  NIce catch of bureaucratic/legalistic doublespeak worthy of George Orwell.  +1

[Kraft]

Mariupol has no realistic chance of holding out. The defenders have already been pushed deep into the city and the situation is horrific.

[Erwin]

16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think it's possible that the war will end with a "whimper", but I don't see sanctions lifting anyway. And I don't see countries such as Germany going back to being reliant on Russian gas.

History shows us how things get back to normal - ie: making money.  Germany and Japan after WW2... Vietnam now a valued trading partner visited by tens of thousands of US tourists etc.  The hope is that given enuff time, Putin will be gone and Russia may embrace a "more pleasant attitude" in exchange for better living standards for ordinary folks.  Note that I have spent a little time in USSR, and afterwards Russia in the late 90's, and certainly in Moscow, life for the elites was very good and indistinguishable from (say) NY.  Life for everyone else was not that different from the poorer parts of (say) London.  

[AlexUK]

12 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Yes, this is the critical battle that Ukraine has to continue indefinitely if not "win" - whatever "win" means in a dismembered nation.  So long as the Russian land bridge to Crimea does not exist Putin will have a harder time claiming victory. 

Right now, apparently Putin's ratings in Russia are going up fast.  We in the west have to appreciate that we are just as manipulated by our own propaganda as the Russians are.  

Ukraine has to to be able to maintain its struggle, especially holding onto Mariupol, to have any chance of humiliating Putin.  To survive and prosper over the past decades since the fall of the USSR, Putin had to be very smart/cunning and also have planned well for his own survival.  

 

I am not convinced. The Russian army is continuing to get hammered. Even with the land bridge Ukraine is not going to give up. There will still need to be resupply, defensive positions that can be attacked by infiltrators/drones/artillery. When Russia inevitable has to withdraw troops from certain areas the Ukrainians can reposition/reinforce critical areas. 

If Russia does seek a ceasefire and Ukraine refuses? What then for Russia. The sheer amount off equipment and forces getting destroyed (seemingly!) on a daily basis cannot be sustainable. What proportion of Russian army is still functioning/combat capable ? What is the attrition rate? 

I guess potential plan of attack for Russia would be to expel forcibly all of the (remaining) population of Kherson and Mariupol and hold them as bargaining chips. Condition off peace is they cannot go back to their cities afterwards. Cities repopulate with ethnic Russians. Land Bridge secured. Neutrality secured. Job done. 

[DesertFox]

More gifts...

 

 

[Lethaface]

11 hours ago, Machor said:

Contrarian take, FWIW. I do at least agree with the last paragraph I'm quoting below - all opposition in Russia has been crushed for good:

[...]

"Within Russia, the war has already served Putin’s political purposes. Many in the professional middle class — the people most sympathetic to dissidents like Aleksei Navalny — have gone into self-imposed exile. The remnants of a free press have been shuttered, probably for good. To the extent that Russia’s military has embarrassed itself, it is more likely to lead to a well-aimed purge from above than a broad revolution from below. Russia’s new energy riches could eventually help it shake loose the grip of sanctions."

The problem I have with this take is that Russia already has large reserves of gas/oil. They were relatively doing rather good economically pre 2014.

What they lack at this moment and for the foreseeable future is a stable market for their produce, among other things. The marginal costs for each extra cubic meter of gas they might be able to 'acquire' thus seems rather high (cost of invasion + sanctions / boycots + establishment of shale extraction operation). Not to speak of the very large risks for 'project success' and 'longterm reputation damage'. 

So from a business perspective I don't see the genius of this 'heist'. 

[The_Capt]

12 hours ago, Machor said:

Contrarian take, FWIW. I do at least agree with the last paragraph I'm quoting below - all opposition in Russia has been crushed for good:

"What if Putin Didn’t Miscalculate?"

By Bret Stephens

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html?referringSource=articleShare

"Within Russia, the war has already served Putin’s political purposes. Many in the professional middle class — the people most sympathetic to dissidents like Aleksei Navalny — have gone into self-imposed exile. The remnants of a free press have been shuttered, probably for good. To the extent that Russia’s military has embarrassed itself, it is more likely to lead to a well-aimed purge from above than a broad revolution from below. Russia’s new energy riches could eventually help it shake loose the grip of sanctions."

 

 

Sorry but this makes very little sense from a couple perspectives.  I am not sure why so many people need to somehow find a dark genius in Putin's actions and strategy.  I guess some have invested so much in making him the boogey-man that their own interests are at stake here while others sound like they are on the Russian payroll.

So internally, starting a war and then losing it has never been a smart path to reinforcing internal control.  The worse one loses the more internal (not less) internal tension it creates.  This reinforces the idea that a quick war may have solved some of those internal issues.  Why try and suppress free press when they are crowing a quick victory parade in Kyiv?  So the idea that this was all a clever ploy to get a better domestic grip does not make a lot of sense unless you can get a quick win, which did not happen.  Every day Russia bleeds in Ukraine makes things worse, not better.

Resource grab.  Well first off, if this was the aim they missed it:

https://www.flandersinvestmentandtrade.com/export/sites/trade/files/market_studies/Ukrainian Energy Market_0.pdf

Russia already had the Crimea.  It might have grabbed that thin sliver in the south and took a few nibbles from that big eastern field but the majority of that field is still in Ukrainian hands.  This might have been a goal on the initial invasion but the debacle we have seen unfold for a month now does not support an oil and gas grab strategy.

Further, resource-wise this makes little sense.  Russia is sitting on 4.8% (ish - number swings around depending where you look), while Ukraine has a whopping .06%.  Gas is even crazier with Russia at 25% and Ukraine at .6% (https://www.worldometers.info/gas/#:~:text=There are 6%2C923 trillion cubic,levels and excluding unproven reserves).

Why on earth would Putin risk the massive sanctions, which further exacerbate his domestic troubles, in order to try and grab a fraction of a ridiculously small share of oil and gas?  There are significant Black Sea reserves (https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/02/28/as-russia-closes-in-on-crimeas-energy-resources-what-is-next-for-ukraine/?sh=5ef9b6d829cd) but why wage a freakin land war all over the place if all you want to do is exploit offshore gas in a region where you already have vast naval superiority?

Finally, how exactly has Putin achieved any of these strategic aims thus far?  He has to try and keep a lid on over 10k dead (and times-3 wounded) to avoid domestic pressures, increasing economic failure due to sanctions - leading to domestic pressure, and zero to show for it in "black gold", that you can only sell to China - who is going to gut you price-wise - thanks to said sanctions.  

There is no master plan here, or at least not anymore.  Being an ex-KGB autocrat, Putin demonstrate acumen at subversion strategies; however, on this one he tried to "go loud" and is likely suffering from Dunning-Kruger shock right now as he slowly realizes that he is nowhere near as smart as his cronies have been telling him. 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by The_Capt

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, mosuri said:

Did not see this mentioned yet. Lawyers are getting involved ...

12 Rosgvardia troops that refused to participate in the invasion were fired from their jobs; their lawyer is now arguing there is no basis for the sacking, as officially Russia is not at war.

Google translation of the article in Finnish at

https://www-hs-fi.translate.goog/ulkomaat/art-2000008716782.html?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

This is the problem that Putin (successfully) avoided in 2014 and 2015 during the first invasion.  He only sent in contract soldiers or conscripts that signed up on the spot.  He did not have to worry about Rosgvardia because they did not yet exist, but if it did then he would have the same problem to avoid.

Russia is like most autocratic systems of government.  It has laws, it has courts, it has lawyers.  The state gets away with the things it does because it controls all of these things.  But not always the lawyers.  When a lawyer decides to "buck the system" often bad things happen to the lawyer.  In this case, though, I am not sure if it is that simple for the Russian government.  Putin has made too big a deal out of this not being a war and the laws are quite clear about who can be sent where.  The case might get dropped because of threats or bodily injury to the lawyer, but they couldn't stop the case from being filed.

Steve

[Bulletpoint]

24 minutes ago, Erwin said:

History shows us how things get back to normal - ie: making money.  Germany and Japan after WW2...

Yes, but those wars ended decisively, not with a whimper... My point was that as long as Putin is in power, I don't see things just returning to normal and sanctions being lifted any time soon.

[billbindc]

8 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Machor, thanks for your thoughts.  I was NOT in any way sending any shade your way.  It's always good to question our narratives.

I

Same!

[billbindc]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

definitely.  The "peace" deal they had in 2015 did not result in peace, so why would a new one be any better?

I see Ukrainians, including senior Ukrainian government officials (among them Zelensky) saying that they will never trust Putin or Russia again.  That really changes the equation for a negotiated peace deal.

Steve

It's important to add to this that the overt US position is that no deal is worth signing if Ukraine hasn't agreed to all points therein. Two things are happening there:

1 - The US agrees with the Ukrainian position that anything short of a definitive end to the war just means another war later.

2 - The US thinks FR and GR are still far too ready to make that kind of deal and so have to be boxed in. Hence the declaration that Putin is a war criminal, etc. The policy is in essence "No more half measures". 

[billbindc]

7 hours ago, mosuri said:

Hi Ultradave,

asking for a bit more detail here. It's been decades from my last physics class but living in an area where radon can be a problem keeps you at least somewhat aware of radioactive decay ... no significant alpha emitters?

AIUI U-235 is used in reactors and it decays to thorium via alpha decay (and there's plenty more alpha decay on the path down to lead, e.g., radon) but it takes aeons to do so, so unless there is massive amounts of it around there's not much alpha floating around. right? I would still avoid kicking up uranium dust, if not for anything else but for the toxic effects

 

Cheryl Rofer is an arms control expert and physicist. She's poured some cold water on the idea that this is a serious issue.

[LongLeftFlank]

55 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Yes, this is the critical battle that Ukraine has to continue indefinitely if not "win" - whatever "win" means in a dismembered nation.

'Dismembered' is a very interesting choice of word. Let me flip that on its head and float a  counterthesis that I've been thinking about lately.

....Like many others here, I started in this Mother of All Threads way back in late Feb. fairly sure that the Russians were going to leave 1000+ dead tanks along their northern 'Groupes Mobiles' routes, but wind up biting off and holding a big chunk of Ukraine, running roughly Kherson-Zaporozhe-Izium (the 'land bridge to Crimea' + Donbass). This would be enough for Putin to declare victory, and that's more or less where he seems to be heading now.

So yeah, we called it. Yay us....

But after reading the writings of the pros here and considering the documentary evidence, I find myself optimistic (nay Pollyannish) enough now to wonder how far the pendulum could possibly swing in the other direction.

Let's say the UA combat battalions prove willing and able to systematically envelop and demolish clumsy Russian defensive positions manned by undermotivated kids, and restore the entirety 2022 border? (I'm not talking about retaking Crimea btw, as I doubt the population there would support the UA as liberators)

...So if that's where the cease fire line is drawn, Putin is Napoleon and Russia is defanged for the moment, what then?

Can Zelensky create a stable (and honest) enough unity government and draw in enough Western/Asian investment to create a new Ukraine? With a shiny new Kharkov and Mariupol rising from the ruins, with chip fabs and GMP pharma plants that are cost competitive with, say, Thailand and Vietnam? As Germany showed, having your infra bombed gives you a reason to build anew....

And if that happens, do Belarus and even certain oblasts in the 'Great Russian' heartland itself (e.g. Kursk, Voronezh and.... wait for it, Donbass, Crimea) begin gazing longingly across the frontier -- the new European frontier -- as their remaining young people start voting with their feet?

....

Come on, who's coming with me? Anyone?

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, THH149 said:

Plus you can add to that list a frozen conflict along the Kherson Oblast to Karkiv Oblast, well beyond Donetsk and Luhansk, with fake referendums in those wholly occupied oblasts transferring themselves to RF (over Ukr objections and not internationally recognised) before November this year, plus I guess a ten year program to reform the RA into something more than an artillery park with the money it gets from selling resources to China and India etc, while it prepares for the next war. Putin will die an old man in office.

Not what I'd like to see obv. but what I think is most likely.

As I've stated many times before, including in response to this counter-factual WSJ OpEd, all of these things Putin succeeded in doing in the past is because he did not "bet the farm" on any one of them.  That way if things didn't go as planned he wouldn't be in the sort of position he's in now.

Look at the Donbas in 2014 for an example of this.  The original plan was to take over the entire coastline, all of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a pretty good chunk of the NE (especially Kharkiv).  That is where all the Russian "Tourists" and "Protestors" showed up to attempt takeovers.  When they were successfully defeated in places like Odessa, Mariupol, and Kharkiv that is when the real war began.  Putin invested cautiously in this and for a while it looked to be working, but Ukraine struck back and was going to end the whole adventure without Russia forming a stronger direct military intervention.  Which he did, but again only on a limited basis.  He stabilized the front until significant resistance was encountered and then "brokered" the Minsk 1 and 2 accords.  HE DID NOT GO "ALL IN" at that time.  Instead, he accepted the limitations of his gains and walked away from the table with something instead of risking everything.

This is the point you'll hear me hammering on time and time again... with this war Putin did something he has NEVER done before, so looking at the past and saying "but it has always worked" is like saying "I've always had icecream in the past, so why not now?" when it's clear your freezer is broken when before it wasn't.  Everything has to be looked at in its proper context.  Always.  Otherwise analysis is as pointless as the mountains of people that said Russia would win this war in 2-3 days.

Steve

 

[BeondTheGrave]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As I've stated many times before, including in response to this counter-factual WSJ OpEd, all of these things Putin succeeded in doing in the past is because he did not "bet the farm" on any one of them.  That way if things didn't go as planned he wouldn't be in the sort of position he's in now.

Look at the Donbas for an example of this.  The original plan was to take over the entire coastline, all of Luhansk and Donetsk, and a pretty good chunk of the NE (especially Kharkiv).  That is where all the Russian "Tourists" and "Protestors" showed up to attempt takeovers.  When they were successfully defeated in places like Odessa, Mariupol, and Kharkiv that is when the real war began.  Putin invested cautiously in this and for a while it looked to be working, but Ukraine struck back and was going to end the whole adventure without Russia forming a stronger direct military intervention.  Which he did, but again only on a limited basis.  He stabilized the front until significant resistance was encountered and then "brokered" the Minsk 1 and 2 accords.  HE DID NOT GO "ALL IN" at that time.  Instead, he accepted the limitations of his gains and walked away from the table with something instead of risking everything.

This is the point you'll hear me hammering on time and time again... with this war Putin did something he has NEVER done before, so looking at the past and saying "but it has always worked" is like saying "I've always had icecream in the past, so why not now?" when it's clear your freezer is broken when before it wasn't.  Everything has to be looked at in its proper context.  Always.  Otherwise analysis is as pointless as the mountains of people that said Russia would win this war in 2-3 days.

Steve

 

I really like this and, IMO, its one of Putin's hallmark traits as a strategist. I dont think I can remember an international crisis he started where he went 'all in' like you describe. Not in Syria, not in Ukraine or Georgia. Maybe you'd say, prestige wise, he did for Chechnya but that was early on in his career when he was less established. Since then? Putin's skill is in forcing a crisis that he can then solve. Even this war was not an 'all in' move at first, and thats part of the Russian problem. It was predicated on mistaken assumptions. But imagine the reverse situation, that Kyiv had collapsed and that Russia today was sitting on a line from Odessa to Kherson to Kyiv with a puppet government claiming the whole country. A crisis. But one which the west would have had to negotiate to solve rather than solve militarily (through the Ukrainian proxy). You could imagine the impotent outrage coming from the west at such a state of affairs, but by now after over a month media coverage would have accepted the 'new normal.'

Zelensky and Ukraine didn't collapse and now Putin is forced to overcommit to get something back from the situation. Not just militarily, but also in terms of prestige and standing as well. When you start a war to 'denazify' a country, how can you end up just negotiating a limited peace? Even if he ends up hiving off Kherson. Everyone agrees in hindsight that Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop were mistakes, so is Putin Chamberlin? 

Anyway thats just to say I like this framing.  

[CHEqTRO]

Wow. They are actually going to go ahead with this it seems. This is a worrying move, honestly.

Either Germany humilliates itself in such an unprecedented way, and esentially tears NATO and the EU apart, or the Russians are going to lose a lot of their GDP in a matter of days.

If they are doing this, I cannot avoid to think that they are preparing , either in the short or mid-term, for war against Europe, as the Russian economy would not survive in the long term (hell, not even in the short term) without gas money, so a new geopolitical balance in Europe would have to be created so the loss of this income is made irrelevant (or somewhat so), and the only way of achieving this is via military means. A new explanation as of why those VDV units are being retired out of north Ukraine?

[Fernando]

In some respects this war resembles the Eastern Front with time sped up and roles reversed, with the Russians playing the part of the Germans. The Russians have tried to overthrow the government and capture the country by attacking along the entire front, as the Germans did in 1941.

Because they have failed and lack sufficient forces to attack everywhere, they are now going to attack only in a sensitive sector of the front, as the Germans did in 1942. The Russians are going to attack in a sector where they can make the most of it. pocketing a significant part of the Ukrainian army and seizing politically and economically valuable regions.

The problem I see is that at the moment the Ukrainians do not seem to be in a position to carry out large counter-attacks. I am afraid they have suffered heavy losses, so the Russians, despite their large losses, still have a strong enough force. The Ukrainians still have to further degrade it before they get a sufficient large advantage to be able to cause the Russians a Stalingrad 2.0 (or another kind of victory) somewhere in the front.

On the other hand, we must remember that Putin turns 70 this year. In 10 years he will be 80. At that age you can maintain dictatorial power but I don't think he will be able to undertake high-risk actions like a new invasion. Whatever he wants to do, he has to do now since his time is quickly running out. Putin is like Hitler, a gambler, and he clearly wants to win the war so he will do whatever it takes to win it and he will try while he can.

I do not think that the Russian army in Ukraine will dissolve. This implies that at some point the Ukrainians, after eliminating the Russian options to continue advancing in Donbas or elsewhere through the degradation of Russian offensive capabilities, have to be in a position to carry out a major offensive in some sector of the front that destroy a significant part of Russian fighting power in the Ukraine that forces Putin to realize that he can no longer win.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Fernando