War for territory is the western idea of the war in Ukraine, but it is clearly and explicitly contradictory to what the russian government has stated as official goals and strategy. Small territorial gains? Yes, but the russian objective is “demilitarization” and the only way to demilitarize a state that is unwilling to do it is to destroy their army and their ability to fight. Even the 3rd assault brigade, what’s left of the infamous Azov Battalion, refused their orders to counter attack on the flanks of Avdeevka and there are reports and rumors that Zelensky might move /legally/politically against them. If even the most fanatical of their forces refuse to fight, then the rest of the army might stop following orders soon enough. That is a recipe for disaster in Ukraine, and at the least expected moment it all can get out of control for the government in Kiev. Not to mention that Zelensky’s term is about to end, and who knows what will happen after that, since the country is really in no position to hold elections.
I understand that they aren’t there to eat Ukraine, I’m more pointing out that this still seems to be a stalemate. I feel like if they take kharkiv or something that would be a more obvious sign of the war coming close to an end
I think the real indicator of the war to me has always been the casualty rate and the resources spent. It went from 5 dead UKR to 1 dead RUS right from the start, now we’re at 10:1 ratios–atrociously bad. The billions in Western weapons, tanks, and cold hard cash have all evaporated; their economies are in shambles while Russia’s “fortress economy” lives up to its name.
It only looks like a stalemate if we look at it from the lens of territory. If Russia defined its own victory conditions as capturing all of Ukraine territorially in the shortest amount of time, they could have swept the entire country in a month or two. However, Russia defines victory by minimizing its own losses while bleeding Ukraine, minimizing civilian losses and destruction of civilian infrastructure, beating the West in the economic arm wrestle, and ensuring that liberated Ukranian territory is not a frothing hotbed of Neo Nazi paramilitary terrorist activity. By all of these self-defined victory metrics, they have consistently been performing exemplarily with only minor hiccups.
Even when some form of peace declaration is signed, the war won’t be over. Banderites and their NATO masters will be waging war with Russia until the West as we know it has completely collapsed and been reinvented.
the only way to demilitarize a state that is unwilling to do it is to destroy their army and their ability to fight
all the more reason for Russia to move aggressively to envelop and destroy elements of the UAF like those ‘routing’ from these front line positions—if this is still too dangerous for Russia, the UAF must not be in that bad of a spot
sticking to slow and steady when the enemy is running away is prolonging a conflict by giving them an opportunity to regroup later. now it’s possible the UAF really are in crisis, but if Russia doesn’t exploit that with big moves that’s as good as the Ukainians not collapsing in terms of how long it will take for the war to end
I have said it before: this conflict ends with the demilitarization and denazification of NATO. Ukraine is irrelevant at this point. It has’t been for a while.
Russia has no interest in destroying the Ukrainian forces, because the latter is already a spent force.
For them, the only means of destroying NATO is when Europe increases their defense budget spending and leading to the crumbling of their own economy. This is already happening, and ending the war now gives room for Europe to breathe and rebuild their economy.
As you might have noticed, the militarization of European NATO states will paradoxically lead to the demilitarization of NATO instead.
you’re just asserting direct contradictions. UAF not destroyed—but they’re spent, more military–demilitarization. but i’m really not interested in the layers upon layers you need to understand Russia’s 20-year-plan that totally exists and guides every cautious or backward step the Russian army seems to make.
if the Russians don’t want to destroy the UAF and continue the war in perpetuity, then the retreat at Adiivka (the event this comment thread is about) does not then herald a collapse of the Ukrainian position & the war will probably continue. which is what i was concluding, granted from different premises
This is a fair point. Hm. Maybe they’re genuinely concerned about escalation, nuclear proliferation? They only want to deal with one Nazi regime at a time and maybe mowing down the routing Nazis all at once will make Poland or the Baltics all slide into conflict at once? Like, control the flow, leak the dam don’t burst it. Speculation.
What is quickly ending the war going to do for Russia, except for risking higher casualties and giving Europe the room to breathe, as the latter is already going into austerity mode due to their increased military spending?
Russia’s only win condition in this war is economic in nature.
Remember, this is an industrial war - Russia can keep doing this forever while the EU is constrained by its monetary system and fiscal rules. The eurozone will not survive this if they truly want to defeat Russia in military terms. Europe ultimately has to make a choice, and all options available are worse for them.
War for territory is the western idea of the war in Ukraine, but it is clearly and explicitly contradictory to what the russian government has stated as official goals and strategy. Small territorial gains? Yes, but the russian objective is “demilitarization” and the only way to demilitarize a state that is unwilling to do it is to destroy their army and their ability to fight. Even the 3rd assault brigade, what’s left of the infamous Azov Battalion, refused their orders to counter attack on the flanks of Avdeevka and there are reports and rumors that Zelensky might move /legally/politically against them. If even the most fanatical of their forces refuse to fight, then the rest of the army might stop following orders soon enough. That is a recipe for disaster in Ukraine, and at the least expected moment it all can get out of control for the government in Kiev. Not to mention that Zelensky’s term is about to end, and who knows what will happen after that, since the country is really in no position to hold elections.
I understand that they aren’t there to eat Ukraine, I’m more pointing out that this still seems to be a stalemate. I feel like if they take kharkiv or something that would be a more obvious sign of the war coming close to an end
I think the real indicator of the war to me has always been the casualty rate and the resources spent. It went from 5 dead UKR to 1 dead RUS right from the start, now we’re at 10:1 ratios–atrociously bad. The billions in Western weapons, tanks, and cold hard cash have all evaporated; their economies are in shambles while Russia’s “fortress economy” lives up to its name.
It only looks like a stalemate if we look at it from the lens of territory. If Russia defined its own victory conditions as capturing all of Ukraine territorially in the shortest amount of time, they could have swept the entire country in a month or two. However, Russia defines victory by minimizing its own losses while bleeding Ukraine, minimizing civilian losses and destruction of civilian infrastructure, beating the West in the economic arm wrestle, and ensuring that liberated Ukranian territory is not a frothing hotbed of Neo Nazi paramilitary terrorist activity. By all of these self-defined victory metrics, they have consistently been performing exemplarily with only minor hiccups.
Even when some form of peace declaration is signed, the war won’t be over. Banderites and their NATO masters will be waging war with Russia until the West as we know it has completely collapsed and been reinvented.
all the more reason for Russia to move aggressively to envelop and destroy elements of the UAF like those ‘routing’ from these front line positions—if this is still too dangerous for Russia, the UAF must not be in that bad of a spot
I think slow and steady has done them nothing but good, they are in no rush, why start now?
sticking to slow and steady when the enemy is running away is prolonging a conflict by giving them an opportunity to regroup later. now it’s possible the UAF really are in crisis, but if Russia doesn’t exploit that with big moves that’s as good as the Ukainians not collapsing in terms of how long it will take for the war to end
I have said it before: this conflict ends with the demilitarization and denazification of NATO. Ukraine is irrelevant at this point. It has’t been for a while.
why would not pressing an advantage against a NATO proxy in any way be conducive to that
Russia has no interest in destroying the Ukrainian forces, because the latter is already a spent force.
For them, the only means of destroying NATO is when Europe increases their defense budget spending and leading to the crumbling of their own economy. This is already happening, and ending the war now gives room for Europe to breathe and rebuild their economy.
As you might have noticed, the militarization of European NATO states will paradoxically lead to the demilitarization of NATO instead.
you’re just asserting direct contradictions. UAF not destroyed—but they’re spent, more military–demilitarization. but i’m really not interested in the layers upon layers you need to understand Russia’s 20-year-plan that totally exists and guides every cautious or backward step the Russian army seems to make.
if the Russians don’t want to destroy the UAF and continue the war in perpetuity, then the retreat at Adiivka (the event this comment thread is about) does not then herald a collapse of the Ukrainian position & the war will probably continue. which is what i was concluding, granted from different premises
This is a fair point. Hm. Maybe they’re genuinely concerned about escalation, nuclear proliferation? They only want to deal with one Nazi regime at a time and maybe mowing down the routing Nazis all at once will make Poland or the Baltics all slide into conflict at once? Like, control the flow, leak the dam don’t burst it. Speculation.
What is quickly ending the war going to do for Russia, except for risking higher casualties and giving Europe the room to breathe, as the latter is already going into austerity mode due to their increased military spending?
Russia’s only win condition in this war is economic in nature.
Remember, this is an industrial war - Russia can keep doing this forever while the EU is constrained by its monetary system and fiscal rules. The eurozone will not survive this if they truly want to defeat Russia in military terms. Europe ultimately has to make a choice, and all options available are worse for them.