I don’t think they have a chance to retake Crimea, barring a complete disintegration of the Russian army.
IMHO a cease-fire / diplomatic solution is a highly unlikely ending because there’s no reason for Ukraine to take Russia at their word. It would require something like a much larger version of the Korean DMZ, or alternatively having American troops (with Abrams, F-16s, etc.) stationed in Ukraine. That’s not something that Russia will agree to short of a coup resulting in a western government, which is also highly unlikely. How else would a stable diplomatic solution be possible? If Ukraine accepts anything less, all they’re doing is signing up for another war down the line, likely within a few months.
Depends how long it takes for Putin to fall out of a window with a stomach full of Polonium 210.
From your lips to Gods ears.
I can’t believe I missed this post 
. To put my previous post more eloquently, I don’t see Russia stopping either until the complete disintegration of their army (possibly even by nukes if things go really badly) or if there’s a coup. Or, less likely, Russia somehow manages to win. Putin is just too far gone for this thing to have any other kind of ending.
I mean, that’s true of every negotiated end of a war ever, and yet, it happens. And yeah, Ukraine would build up like crazy on their border. I imagine they’d get sold a shit load of air defense, F-16s, rocket artillery, etc in the meantime too. Would Russia invade again in 6 months if there were 100 HIMARS and 500 Abrams in country? If negotiation involved US peace-keeping personnel?
Yes, Russia wouldn’t agree to it now. They still hold larger ambitions. If Ukraine keeps killing them and destroying their equipment, the calculus changes for Putin. That’s the whole point.
Lots of talk about Putin being crazy too. I think that’s generally pretty overblown. (and for all leaders. Kim Jong Un isn’t crazy either). He’s probably not being fed the best info because Shoygu and Gerasimov are yes men, but if he’s ever presented with the option of settling vs the likelihood of tanks rolling into Belgorod, he’ll take it.
The impression I get is that the “Ukrainian word” for “killed”, in this context, means something more like “rendered ineffective for fighting”. The actual number of no-longer-living Russian soldiers is probably more like that third/quarter fraction. If a soldier can no longer engage, as far as Ukraine is concerned, they are effectively dead (not part of the battle force), and if they are still breathing, that amounts to a net handicap for the Russians, as the person must be ferried away from the lines for treatment.
For what it’s worth, this was true for the US in Vietnam, and for Russia in Afghanistan.
Of course, neither situation is precisely analogous, because no historical metaphor is perfect. But simply to say “Russia has more people and materiel” is insufficient as an argument.
Which is exactly what “casualty” means in English military parlance. Could it be the more restrictive civilian meaning is used more generally, as we do?
I agree, and I think that will happen eventually. Again, logistics and morale.
We’ve already had this conversation (probably in the first thread so will be difficult to find it). Ukrainians really do mean killed. However this is war and the first casualty of war is truth etc etc
So based on all that I’ve read and heard recently about the strategic direction of the war, it seems both sides are currently trying to build up their reserve capacity so they can launch a major offensive. Russia began its ‘partial mobilization’ back in late September, but did not have the facilities or resources available to adequately train and equip all the new draftees. Back in September, if you recall, the Kharkiv offensive had just taken place and the lines had not yet stabilized owing to Russia’s critical manpower shortage. Because of this, a sizeable percentage (majority even?) of the mobiks were immediately thrown into the field with virtually no training. Meanwhile, the other draftees have been receiving something more akin to standard training while the troops thrown into the breech were essentially being sacrificed. Russia’s game plan since abandoning Kherson is aimed towards keeping Ukr forces as heavily engaged as they possibly can in an effort to try to force Ukr to commit their strategic reserves that otherwise would be allocated for an upcoming offensive. Russia hopes to use its recently trained forces for its own offensive. It would appear that many of the attacks in and around Bakhmut have been poorly supported which suggests Rus has been conserving resources for this upcoming offensive. According to Ukr officials this new offensive will likely be directed towards Kharkiv and is poised to occur in the near future. Has the Russian Offensive Begun? - The New York Times (nytimes.com). Russia may not have the luxury of waiting, as armored vehicles will be delivered to Ukr in the not distant future.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has used this time to conduct their own training and accumulate as much offensive firepower as they can from their allies. Limited offensive operations have been conducted in Luhansk with the idea of taxing Russia’s logistics, but much of the combat that’s taken place the last six weeks or so has been defensive in nature with the aim of inflicting the maximum casualties possible. They could almost certainly have avoided the loss of Soledar had they chosen to commit more of their reserves, but doing so would necessarily have come at the expense of their future offensive. It’s quite possible, though, that Ukr will have little choice but to commit their reserves once Russia begins their anticipated offensive in the northeast.
I’m pretty sure that the current Russian military doctrine is to just leave them lying there on the battlefield. Which of course is terrible for the morale of your surviving troops, but they don’t care about that, either.
The ones who are not dead?
all numbers thrown around should be consumed with a pinch of salt - that does not change the fact that the same source claims that in january 2023 Ukr. killed nearly 25% of all russians that were killed in the past 11 months
here a stacked chart with the blue line representing accumulated russian deaths (troops)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10s1y5r/did_some_stats_of_estimated_russian_losses_sorry/
Yeah, Bahkmut has been brutal for Russia. However, those deaths are heavily tilted towards Vagner convicts. Lots of regular or special forces troops killed too, don’t get me wrong, but Russia isn’t that concerned about losing thousands of convicts a month.
It’s considered a truism that you don’t win a war by literally annihilating an enemy’s soldiers. But in the absence of any better strategy, could it be that this is what Russia is trying to do? Just keep inflicting casualties until Ukraine is a country of women, children, old men and the disabled?
having said that - and reading between the lines of the normally very well connected twitteria - I see a lot of pressure being put on Ukr. in the battlefield over the past weeks …
- Bakhmut Holds!
The situation is deteriorating - Russian forces have captured the village of …
- Russian forces continue to press assaults in the direction of Vuhledar
- Ukrainian forces have been able to repel so far assaults towards …
- Ukrainian forces continue to effectively repel assaults in and around …
- Ukrainian forces repelled assaults in the areas of …
- Russian forces captured the village of …
- Ukrainian forces overnight repelled assaults in the areas of Yampolivka, Spirne, Rozdolivka, Blahodatne, Krasna Hora, Paraskoviivka, Bakhmut and Klishchiivka.
etc…
populationwise, RU is 3,5 times Ukr. (40something million vs. 140something) … and they seem to be donating bodies at a way higher ratio than Ukr. - so from a pure mathematical POV, RU will hit this target first.
Do we have any reliable information on the numbers of Ukrainian casualties? That seems to be one of the better kept secrets of this war.