How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

How much profit can a sanctioned Russia give tho to China? Yes natural resources but....Russia needs that money more than China needs the resources, plus the infrastructure for Russian natural resource extraction is aligned with Europe, so not only does China have advantage with Russia in trading already for favorable pricing so further discounts mean virtually nothing, since Russian capital is gonna be not enough to fund resource extraction, China is gonna need to spend money and investment that could go to much more profitable investments and less on safer sources of natural resources and profit.

China does not need a basket case showing to the world why militarily fighting the West is a bad idea. They needed a strong ally to compete with the West together and Putin has ****ed it up hard.

[IMHO]

3 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

With what he has now there is probably no way to win something useful.

Yepp. There's no plan. And never been. That's the whole problem what sets apart Putin and Xi - the former never has a strategy, only immediate turtle-like reactions.

8 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

But even getting Ukraine to formally recognize the DR/LR and Crimea

It may happen only if ZSU's Eastern Group is decisively defeated which is far from certain to say the least. US DoD made their forecast - it will end up in a bloody stall. They have been pretty accurate so far. Yet so many people will die before that happens 

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Yepp. There's no plan. And never been. That's the whole problem what sets apart Putin and Xi - the former never has a strategy, only immediate turtle-like reactions.

It may happen only if ZSU's Eastern Group is decisively defeated which is far from certain to say the least. US DoD made their forecast - it will end up in a bloody stall. They have been pretty accurate so far. Yet so many people will die before that happens 

I agree w this from IMHO, though I would say it differently.  Putin had a Plan A and it looked great on paper.  The problem is he no plan for if Plan A failed.  So, like IMHO says, everything since Plan A failed has been reactive, ad hoc desperation. 

Just like Barbarossa -- Hitler was so sure it was going to work he didn't need to consider the consequences of what happens if it doesn't work.

Meanwhile, around Izyum RU making some small gains at great cost.  And they haven't even gotten to the difficult terrain, including bigger towns sitting on the roads, that they'd need to get to anywhere useful. 

[IMHO]

4 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

How much profit can a sanctioned Russia give tho to China

China would happily take as much as she can   There's a joke going around in Moscow nowadays that it was not Agent Donald sitting in White Hose but rather Agent Vladimir that was sent to Kremlin.

[IMHO]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Putin had a Plan A and it looked great on paper

It's even worse than that - there was no Plan A. They thought Ukrainian people would greet them with bread and salt after they take over their country. They didn't even let in professional servicemen into their plan. It was all done in a close circle of political appointees. That's why such a disaster. And there's no way out of the mess. One thing that Putin achieved in Ukraine - he managed to unite the country. Now there's no Russian speaking East and Polish-Ukrainian speaking West.

[FancyCat]

15 minutes ago, IMHO said:

China would happily take as much as she can   There's a joke going around in Moscow nowadays that it was not Agent Donald sitting in White Hose but rather Agent Vladimir that was sent to Kremlin.

What I'm saying there's a decent chance there isn't any profit at all. Would wager that it becomes a black hole of money even.

[danfrodo]

1 minute ago, IMHO said:

It's even worse than that - there was no Plan A. They thought Ukrainian people would greet them with bread and salt after they take over their country. They didn't even let in professional servicemen into their plan. It was all done in a close circle of political appointees. That's why such a disaster. And there's no way out of the mess. One thing that Putin achieved in Ukraine - he managed to unite the country. Now there's no Russian speaking East and Polish-Ukrainian speaking West.

ah, yes, let me clarify.  "Putin had a Plan A and it looked great on paper" -- to Putin.

[IMHO]

1 minute ago, FancyCat said:

there's a decent chance there isn't any profit at all

I'd rather say there's absolutely no chance there is  

[akd]

Interesting comments from a Russian soldier deployed in Ukraine from Kaliningrad to another soldier still in Russia.  Mentions they went in with 1,000 guys and are now down to 300.  Likely either 336th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade, or one of the regiments from the 18th Guards MRD.

Lost 70% of the unit, but found some AirPods 2.  That about sums this whole thing up nicely.

Edited April 30, 2022 by akd

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

And also, do they even have the weapons to hand them? Do they have a couple million AK's laying around in warehouses or were all of those sold over the last 30 years? Not to mention any heavier weapons. Plus all other kit. We saw the WW2 stuff being handed out to the separatist forces, was that because they were low priority or was it because that is all they had to give them? Maybe someone has some source knowledge of what they actually have for that sort of equipment and how many troops they could actually fully equip?

Assuming Putin manages to stay alive and in power, there is no other way forward for him I think. And it is a horrifying prospect, loss of life will go up an order of magnitude.

Thankfully it seems that Russians  didn't conserve their present force, already reached their culmination point and are going to be beaten to a standstill in a moment. It will give Ukraine a big window of quantitative superiority (and still raising qualitative advantage) to counterattack and prepare for The Horde appearing at the doors in a few months. 

So the question is, what happens then? Best scenario would be if large chunk of RU army was encircled and destroyed completely. There seems to be some potential for that in the north. Save from thst, will the Russians have enough strength to hold to the conquered land? Hardly I think. If they try, it means destruction of their remaining army units during next 2 (?) months. 

So, playing the Devils Advocate, what would be a (semi-) rational course of action for the Russians, taking in account the above assumptions? I have a thought on that I'd like to bounce  it off this forum. 

I think that preserving the forces that are now in Ukraine would be the key, as those would form a nucleus of newly raised army. A strategic retreat would be needed, with only some delaying action fought, basically repeat the Kiev scenario. I assume Ukrainians wouldn't invade Russian proper - if they do, it's only more fuel for the propaganda. Russians should fall back and only fight to keep DNLR and Crimea, as those are already heavily fortified and quite defensible. And wait till they have 1mln+ bodies to throw at Ukraine in the future - which might happen or not, but it seems like only military option to consider. What do you think? 

 

 

[BigDog944]

I'm of the mind that a formal declaration of war opens the door to the use of Russian tactical nukes. Putin must know that he needs to keep his escalation options open so is probably working towards clearing whatever legal hurdles may be in the way right now.

I don't know what this will mean in terms of where this war will go, but if there is a real danger of nukes flying, I wonder if that will bring a full western air defence/no fly zone into play over Ukraine.

Edited April 30, 2022 by BigDog944

[IMHO]

3 minutes ago, BigDog944 said:

if there is a real danger of nukes flying, I wonder if that will bring a full western air defence/no fly zone into play over Ukraine

And how this will help prevent a Nuclear Third World War?

[BigDog944]

Just now, IMHO said:

And how this will help prevent a Nuclear Third World War?

Sorry, I'm talking only about the use of tactical nukes within Ukraine. It would make sense that a formal state of war must exist before Russia can "legally" consider using tactical nukes on a battlefield. I'm quite ignorant on this topic, but reading about Russia declaring war on May 9th got me thinking about more than just the mobilization of Russian conscripts.

[sross112]

44 minutes ago, Huba said:

So, playing the Devils Advocate, what would be a (semi-) rational course of action for the Russians, taking in account the above assumptions? I have a thought on that I'd like to bounce  it off this forum. 

I think that preserving the forces that are now in Ukraine would be the key, as those would form a nucleus of newly raised army. A strategic retreat would be needed, with only some delaying action fought, basically repeat the Kiev scenario. I assume Ukrainians wouldn't invade Russian proper - if they do, it's only more fuel for the propaganda. Russians should fall back and only fight to keep DNLR and Crimea, as those are already heavily fortified and quite defensible. And wait till they have 1mln+ bodies to throw at Ukraine in the future - which might happen or not, but it seems like only military option to consider. What do you think? 

That is probably their best choice to extend the conflict. It's either A: keep grinding your own army to death until it collapses or B: go over to the defensive and try to hold. Neither one of them gets them a win though. They need to keep attacking and win, maybe not the whole that they initially wanted but they have nothing to trade for peace at this point. If there is nothing they are willing to give up, and I don't think they are willing to give up the LNR, DNR, land bridge or Crimea. Everything they have right now is the essence of their political goals and they can't give any of it up.

If they pull back and dig in they suffer from two things. First is their front is way too long for them to adequately defend it. Yet the only shortening they can do is pull out of the Kharkov and Izyum areas. That buys them a little but they are still trying to defend too much. So they really don't get to withhold the troops out of the fight to use as a cadre as they have to stay in the line. If they don't the line just gets more porous. If they do we are back to option A of grinding them down, just at a slower rate. Then you throw in some HIMARS and whatever other stuff keeps showing up and maybe the loss rate in static positions becomes higher than when you were trying to attack.

Plus if they aren't attacking that lets the UA re-deploy their heavies. The UA can use Steve's tactics against the northern line and isolate and destroy the low hanging fruit, rinse and repeat. That gives the UA the ability to counter stroke. Their objective should be in the south. Isolate Kherson and as much as they can bag there. Block the Crimea and turn east to clear the land bridge. Once that is done they can decide if they want to pay the price for the LNR DNR, but taking the land bridge really kicks the chair out from under Putin. That is probably the most sensitive part of this invasion now.

So, if they want to "win" the RA is going to have to come up with something offensive. Somehow blow a big hole in the southern line north of Mariupol and charge north looks like the only option they have now. Of course we are speculating without all the facts but I don't see how viable that plan would be with the forces they have left. Maybe? Maybe if they had enough there to create enough of a crisis to pull enough troops away from Izyum to create an opportunity for the pincers to get moving? Just seems like a lot of wishful thinking, but again, maybe. Any given Sunday. They'd surprise a lot of us if they managed to pull something like that off but something like that bagging a bunch of troops and area is the only way they have anything to try to get Ukraine back to the table and agree to peace.

Edited April 30, 2022 by sross112

[IMHO]

51 minutes ago, Huba said:

It will give Ukraine a big window of quantitative superiority (and still raising qualitative advantage)

You are unrealistically optimistic.

51 minutes ago, Huba said:

prepare for The Horde appearing at the doors in a few months. 

Hardly. RF does not have enough force to go for wide swaths of land. That was proved in the first 1.0-1.5 months. What's more rational to expect is a meticulous annihilation of Ukrainian military and degradation of Ukraine's economic capacity and infrastructure. And don't underestimate the pressure it will incur on Europe. 40M people with no income to feed them on - that's a lot.

PS If there's one thing that unites Russia and Ukraine after two months of propaganda 24x7 - everyone hopes the West finally starts seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. No one wants to see Putin's cronies getting away with this.

Edited April 30, 2022 by IMHO

[akd]

8 minutes ago, IMHO said:

No one wants to see Putin cronies getting away with this.

The cool thing is, Putin keeps all his **** in Russia and gets a bunch of theirs! Delight in the punishment of the naughty Boyars dear serfs!

Edited April 30, 2022 by akd

[db_zero]

Unfortunately the use of a tactical nuke is something people need to start considering.

Too many have been too cavalier in their attitudes in regards to Putin actually going that far. 
 

Hopefully they’re right in being cavalier and it never comes to pass. We’ll be in a whole new world once that happens and any response by the West to that is not going to result in victory. If nukes get used we all lose in some way.
 

Some have compared what’s going on as being similar to 1904 when Japan and Russia clashed and Japan an underdog at the time was considered overmatched by Russia.

Let’s hope Ukraine doesn’t end up joining Japan in the nuclear club-the bad one…

[Machor]

22 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The stuff is a two-edged sword. It is like using a hand grenade during a domestic argument. You blow the house up and kill yourself as well. 

 

22 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

1.  Hitler was himself a victim of a gas attack, so unlike his other delusions he didn't have so many regarding their effects and limitations.

2. Gas (delivered by shells) is generally understood to restrict battlefield mobility; i.e. slow down attacks.  It took Hitler until 1944 to really internalize Germany was on the defense and wasn't about to resume the offensive, which might have made gas weapons more tempting for him.

3. By that time, the Allied bombing of the Reich was going on in earnest. The Allies had made it clear prewar that once the Germans began using gas, dropping it on war factories and their adjoining cities was fair game. So that wasn't going to trade off for him, even with V-bombs.

 

21 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is also ample documentation that German officers were very, very aware that they would be held to account after the war was over.  Since they knew the war wasn't likely to end well for their side, it is probable that there was no mindset within the military to use the weapons because a) they are ineffective, b) they likely cause panic/death among friendly, and c) there was concern about getting strung up by the neck after the war.

Take this thinking and swap out "c" with c) NATO might get directly involved and that will produce a military defeat for sure, in which case they might get strung up by the neck by their own people long before the West could.

Steve

Thank you to all who devoted their time to answering my question about why Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons, but... I'm not sold. 

I'm generalizing the arguments as:

1. Chemical weapons are not effective for tactical or operational use

This leaves me scratching my head as to why Saddam and Assad Sr. went to such lengths and expenses to acquire them, and why Iraq widely used them on the front against Iran. I am genuinely curious.

Given Hitler's preoccupation with Wunderwaffen, why would he ignore one that Germany was already ready to employ, nerve agents?

2. The Allies would have retaliated by using their own chemical weapons strategically

If the Allies had dropped mustard gas on German cities instead of firebombing them, and the Germans had switched the HE warheads on their V-1 and V-2 to nerve gas, who would have benefitted? e.g. Imagine you're dropping mustard gas on Hamburg, but then the Germans are lobbing one ton warheads of Sarin into London.

3. Hitler's subordinates would have revolted (argued by Steve)

I'll reframe this third point around the war in Ukraine to bring the discussion back on topic:

How do we know Putin won't escalate, e.g. by using tactical nukes or striking inside Poland?

I. Putin will realize it's a bad idea. ('Putin', here, stands for whoever is the decision maker; e.g. it could be Putin + Medvedev + Lavrov + Shoigu)

II. Else, Putin's subordinates will realize it's a bad idea and get rid of him.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it should have prevented this war happening in the first place. If the internal workings of the Russian state failed to prevent the war from beginning, how can we count on them to prevent escalation?

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Machor said:

Thank you to all who devoted their time to answering my question about why Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons, but... I'm not sold.

Artillery equally as terrifying is far more efficient. The effect of gas: it contaminated the uniforms and left skin conditions which were hard to treat. Gas lingers on in trenches. The same will go for nuclear weapons, contaminated soil will be thrown into the air and will rain back on the earth. Imagine you win a battle after chemical and nuclear strikes. Your troops will be confined in their positive pressurized environments. Outside the conditions are toxic, conventional weapons maybe far more efficient to achieve your aims. I think NATO will retaliate against tactical nuclear warfare with overwhelming conventional means on the launching sites inside Russia. If putin goes one step further, there will be no winners Russia will vaporize the West will suffer horrific losses but will prevail in the long term. 

[BlackMoria]

Putin has made nothing but bad calls since he green lit this invasion.   So, let's say you are the head of Putin's nuclear forces and Putin calls you up and says he wants to launch a nuke.

Do you believe that your boss, who has made bad call after bad call, suddenly has a 'eureka' moment that solved all of Russia's woes?  Or...

Do you believe that this is the ultimate bad call of calls and if there is going to be a Russia after today, it is up to you to do something.

99.9 of even the steadfast supporters of Putin are going to jack a round into their Makarov, hide it somewhere on their person and wait for their boss to show up with his key.   I don't think anyone is mad dog crazy to go down this path, because it solves nothing and it makes things very, very worse than they are.

In short, I am banking on everyone in his inner circle being sane and realizing the end game of the start of escalation of nukes means No more Russia and no more future for them and their children.

Edited April 30, 2022 by BlackMoria

[Machor]

nvm

Edited April 30, 2022 by Machor
Wrong info on the M777

[BeondTheGrave]

13 minutes ago, Machor said:

This leaves me scratching my head as to why Saddam and Assad Sr.

Several reasons. First the reason why chemical weapons arn't really useful is because any modern-ish level of MOPP protection will keep a soldier safe. If Kyiv has been maintaining their NBC systems, their soldiers know how to properly use MOPP under pressure, and they have adequate numbers of suits placed forward, the impact is limited. In the first attack you might see a high casualty incident, essentially caused by the surprise of using the weapon, but casualties after that event would be more limited. 

So why use them at all? Well a couple of reasons:

1. Fighting in MOPP sucks (ive heard). Its hot, its sweaty. If you wear it right your skin cant breath. The mask will limit your field of view, and most vehicles will have to fight buttoned up. Chemical weapons CANNOT serve as an A2/AD weapon, but it can serve as pseudo-A2/AD in that anyone fighting in a particular area will need to do so with an extra barrier to get over. 
2. As a result Chemical weapons can increase friction. Fighting in an NBC environment will always increase casualties. Maybe your suit is torn. Maybe you didn't blouse your boots right. Maybe a minor wound now turns into a deadly vector for gas or contamination. Maybe you took your mask off for some air and thats when the gas rounds come in. It isn't a game changer, but its a friction adder. Like pouring sand in the machine. The issue with this, though, is that gas is side agnostic. Its like a dumb mine. It effects both sides. And while that effect may not start out equal, gas can be unpredictable. A sudden wind change may roll the weapon from their lines onto yours. Or maybe unusual cold turns your weapon into an unexpectedly persistent chemical (such things supposedly happened with Mustard Gas in WWI. Below freezing, the gas turned into a mostly inert oil. If you got some on your coat say and then walked into a dugout and warmed up by the stove, once the gas vaporized youd kill everyone in the dugout). 
3. Gas is great against unprotected populations. That is, its great against civilians who you really cant protect from a gas attack. I mean sure you can issue masks to everyone but those kinds of policies have never really been tested and IMO a gas attack on a civilian population center could easily turn into a mass casualty event. Look at Saddam's use of gas against the Kurds. Or indeed his alleged use of gas against Iranian cities. Gas is a very easy and convenient weapon of terror, and if weaponized properly can be like a mini-A bomb. Sure the blast isn't as spectacular, but few things would protect Damascus better than a SCUD filled with Sarin pointed at Tel Aviv.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Assuming Putin manages to stay alive and in power, there is no other way forward for him I think. And it is a horrifying prospect, loss of life will go up an order of magnitude.

Thankfully it seems that Russians  didn't conserve their present force, already reached their culmination point and are going to be beaten to a standstill in a moment. It will give Ukraine a big window of quantitative superiority (and still raising qualitative advantage) to counterattack and prepare for The Horde appearing at the doors in a few months. 

So the question is, what happens then? Best scenario would be if large chunk of RU army was encircled and destroyed completely. There seems to be some potential for that in the north. Save from thst, will the Russians have enough strength to hold to the conquered land? Hardly I think. If they try, it means destruction of their remaining army units during next 2 (?) months. 

So, playing the Devils Advocate, what would be a (semi-) rational course of action for the Russians, taking in account the above assumptions? I have a thought on that I'd like to bounce  it off this forum. 

I think that preserving the forces that are now in Ukraine would be the key, as those would form a nucleus of newly raised army. A strategic retreat would be needed, with only some delaying action fought, basically repeat the Kiev scenario. I assume Ukrainians wouldn't invade Russian proper - if they do, it's only more fuel for the propaganda. Russians should fall back and only fight to keep DNLR and Crimea, as those are already heavily fortified and quite defensible. And wait till they have 1mln+ bodies to throw at Ukraine in the future - which might happen or not, but it seems like only military option to consider. What do you think? 

Good post here, many thanks.  Although beating them to a standstill isn't enough, to my mind. At least part of the Russian army needs to be destroyed outright, not just attrited or driven back.

Some other folks have observed that the Ukrainian front east of Zaporizhne (not shielded by Dnipr) to the 'fortified' eastern bulge is a weak point for them.

I'd argue the reverse (and have previously).

Unlike Kharkiv or Izyum, which adjoin the Russian heartland, that 'land bridge' above Maripol is a major pain in the arse for Russia to reinforce and supply (without bleeding off troops from Mariupol or Kherson), still less sustain an offensive. Road/rail infra west from Donbas is a shambles, there's only one road out of Crimea and so you need to ship it across the Azov Sea and then unload/reload onto trucks. Yes, doable but hard without proper facilities (single points of vulnerability....)

While the UA forces in line today can't conduct an offensive, once the rest of the front stabilises, it is a comparatively simple matter to shift UA mechanised forces down there -- sure, they will see it, but road and rail infra is intact and very hard for RA air power to get at -- and strike hard for the Azov ports:

a. destroying at least 2 battered RA divisions

b. dividing the invaders

c. imperiling the Russian Kherson armies (already split by the Dnipr), and Crimea itself (jewel in Putin's irredentist crown)

d. relieving Mariupol (a massive symbolic victory, which would reverberate in Russia and make the military defeat impossible to deny or cover up).

e. taking back what is, other than the Kharkiv environs, the most strategically and economically valuable portion of the lost territories.

To my mind, there is just no way Ukraine can agree to a cease fire line that leaves Russians in the 'land bridge'.  It presents a long vulnerable front for the inevitable next war. Perekop isthmus can be readily sealed off, even if Crimea can't be retaken.

Edited April 30, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Machor]

The first open-source intel look into Ukraine being supplied with new TB2s: Canada is selling "30-40" Wescam sights for them.

Canada stopped exporting Wescam sights to Turkey after the war in Karabagh; therefore, remaining TB2s already ordered by Ukraine were built with Turkish Aselsan sights, and it was my understanding that this would be the case with Polish TB2s as well. The new Wescam sights sold by Canada can only be for new Ukrainian TB2s:

"Canadian drone cameras purchased for Ukraine but no word on shipments"

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-drone-cameras-purchased-for-ukraine-but-no-word-on-shipments

"High-tech Canadian drone cameras have been acquired for Ukraine but the Canadian government is being tight-lipped about when that war-torn nation will receive the gear."

"National Defence is financing the $50-million purchase of the Wescam surveillance cameras and is expected to be involved in shipping the equipment to a location in Europe."

"Canada hopes to supply between 30 and 40 of the cameras built by L3 Harris Wescam, headquartered in Hamilton, Ont.

Sources tell this newspaper the cameras have been purchased."

"Last April, then Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau put a halt to exports of the L3Harris Wescam cameras to Turkey for use in the Bayraktar TB2. The ban on exporting the sensors to Turkey came after the Canadian government determined the Bayraktar drones were used by Azeri forces fighting Armenia in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. “This use was not consistent with Canadian foreign policy, nor end-use assurances given by Turkey,” Garneau stated."

"The ban on exporting the cameras to Turkey will still remain in place."

[BeondTheGrave]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

So, playing the Devils Advocate, what would be a (semi-) rational course of action for the Russians, taking in account the above assumptions? I have a thought on that I'd like to bounce  it off this forum. 

I think that preserving the forces that are now in Ukraine would be the key, as those would form a nucleus of newly raised army. A strategic retreat would be needed, with only some delaying action fought, basically repeat the Kiev scenario. I assume Ukrainians wouldn't invade Russian proper - if they do, it's only more fuel for the propaganda. Russians should fall back and only fight to keep DNLR and Crimea, as those are already heavily fortified and quite defensible. And wait till they have 1mln+ bodies to throw at Ukraine in the future - which might happen or not, but it seems like only military option to consider. What do you think?

The problem here is that time is definitely not on Russia's side. It would probably a year or longer to set up a mass conscription service, run classes through it, and get up to a million soldiers. And it would cost billions to do. Billions on facilities, billions on weapons, and at least few billion on soldier pay. And what will the fight with? Will the T-62 go back into production? Because in terms of modern weaponry Russia is now basically unable to mass produce something like the Armata, probably not even the T-90/T-72B3. So youre hemorrhaging money and popularity to build an army qualitatively weaker than whatever Ukraine will have. 

Meanwhile Ukraine will only get stronger. The damage to their economy is tremendous. Incalculable, at least to my soft monkey brain. But basically the west wont run out of money in this fight and wont get tired of poking the bear. If the leading 10 members of NATO and the EU each gave Ukraine just $15b for recovery, theyd raise the entire estimated GDP of Ukraine. That would go a long way towards rebuilding those damaged cities. And with a constant influx of supplies, all Ukraine need do is keep men at arms and keep pushing. And of course every week that goes by more teams are trained on more toys. So while some poor Ivan is learning how to shift the gears in a T-64A with a hammer, Zelenskva across the border is learning how the rocked assisted laser guided cluster enema works. At some point the balance will shift to the point that without a peace Russia will not be able to hold even what it has, that even the DR/LR and Crimea wont be able to hold. And of course economically, the longer Russia is cut off the easier it is never to hook them back up again. If the war ended tonight, I have no doubt tomorrow Nordstream 2 would be at full capacity. But if it takes a year, by that time will Germany really still need Russian gas? Or will they have broken ground on some other project that solves the issue? 

The long war option looks attractive because it offers Putin a chance to readjust. But its, IMO, a horrible outcome for Russia (and I mean bad for Ukraine too, lets be honest). Horrible because even if somehow Russia were able to establish a new status quo in place, they would be locked into the sanctions regime, locked into a bleeding war on the border, locked into war footing, locked into draconian measures at home. In recent history Russia has not done well in long wars, especially long wars that its obviously losing. The only Russian leader since Napoleon to hold the country together in a long war is Stalin. And he did that with an ocean of blood.