this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
52 points (98.1% liked)

Ukraine

12370 readers
718 users here now

News related to Ukraine

Matrix Space


Community Rules

🇺🇦 Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

🌻🤢No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

💥Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

🚷[Combat] videos containing footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW

No AI slop

❗ Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam (includes charities)
  6. No content against Finnish law

💳 Defense Aid 💥


💳 Humanitarian Aid ⚕️⛑️


🪖 Volunteer with the International Legionnaires


See also:

!nafo@lemm.ee

!combatvideos@SJW


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For serious discussion - like your thoughts beyond simple "Russians go home" platitudes. What even is a russian theory of victory at this point?

First off - this STILL seems to be a war where their only goal is conquest and capitulation of the Ukrainian government to a Russian puppet one. But - how do they intend realize that?

  1. Terroristic bombings against civilian targets from standoff distance has never, ever been successful at defeating an industrial society. It's way, way way too expensive to maintain and doesn't hold ground.

  2. Russia's mechanized forces in mass have largely been wiped out and is cost-ineffective compared to Ukraine's ability to stop them with drones.

  3. Russia's infantry tactics is literally sending in small infiltration teams into forward areas, where they are eventually either droned, sniped, mined, shelled or outright counter attacked and killed.

Ukraine seems capable of increasingly automating their defense AND assualt forces to be less manpower intensive, and able to trade a little bit of land temporarily until they can kill the infiltration teams that bum rush positions in cars, motorbikes or on foot. The latter is NOT a serious or effective strategy for occupying and pacifying conquered land.

In the big picture - Russia seems to just be prolonging the slaughter and hoping to be given something in return to make it stop. But - that doesn't seem likely to work. No serious minded thinkers expect Russia to honor any agreement, so why WOULDN'T Ukraine logically look at the stiatuion and conclude that the ONLY way to stop future russian aggression is to bleed out their army until there is fundamental change in Russian political leadership.

How does Russia 'win' this war? It's hard to see. Things feel very endgame, but also stagnant since life of their soldiers means absolutely nothing to the Kremlin, when they probably know the alternative is that stopping the war leads quickly and directly to total domestic collapse.

Your thoughts please.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My guess: get Le Pen and AfD into power in France and Germany and then have the two largest powers in the EU/NATO switch sides (well, officially become “neutral” “pacifists” aghast at the senseless loss of life, but cut off both military aid to Ukraine and enforcement of sanctions against Russia, including from their own arms suppliers), and then hope that that’s enough.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Not a bad theory, but Trump will likely be politcally neutered in the mid-terms, or his hand will be forced where he tries to cancel elections, and the U.S. descends into total chaos. Probably, the octogenarian dictator and his band of lickspittles aren't competent enough to get their way, and a more democratic consensus comes out of the U.S.

But - let's say it doesn't, and the U.S. continues to be run by Krasnov, unchecked. The Ukrainian War, for Europeans, isn't some abstract side act to domestic partisan games like it is in the U.S. It is a clear and present threat where Russia fully intends to colonize or make puppet states out of Europe if it can find any way to do so.

You could argue that there's been a galvanizing effect in Europe to the second Trump presidency - including in France and Germany - his nutso grift has helped more democratic forces there than his far right Kremlin franchisees. France, Germany, Britain, even Italy's erstwhile-right leaning leadership openly messages against Trump, and doesn't kiss his ass. It's hard to argue that far right populism has benefitted from a Trump's insane carnival show - in fact maybe the opposite. As in - there is still a relevant bloc of euros who live in a world of common sense and might be more energized to defend their democracy from russian corrosion with a Trump presidency more than without it.

TL:DR - Trump might not be helping getting fascists elected in Germany and France. If this is their plan - it doesn't seem to be a good one.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

magyar winning in hungary seriously hurt his influence in europe, and apparently some US outlets, as they were funding CPAC, and BEN shapiros dailywire apparently.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Call me a bit wary - the Russians didn't seem quite furious enough about losing their obvious stooge agent vessel that they use to screw up NATO & the EU. That made me think they might just have been better at hiding their influence on Magyar, presenting it like a win for the west but really just slow playing things. They're down to having ONLY Fico as an obvious spoiler, and he has been less obstructionist than Orban was so far.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I think trump will be out before midterms. “Under new management” will get republican votes. But I’m often wrong.

Internationally, I don’t think it matters unless the policies are totally rolled back.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

thats why gop are doubling down on election interference, gerrymandering and voter suppression, ever since the voting rights act was neutered.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

You think the vulgar talking yam will be out within the next 6 months? That's optimism up the ying yang.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bigboismith@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

My thoughts are that prolonging the war is preferable to securing a poor peace on the home front. As long as the war is going on, they can claim they are advancing and beating back huge offensives. When a peace is achieved, they will have to live with a lot less than they said they would achieve, plus a huge amount of ptsd ridden soldiers and former convicts are released back into a society with a very strained economy.

I doubt there is a planned end-state at the kreml

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 2 days ago

plus the many 1million+ russian men that fled russia adds into the strain of the economic loss.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

At this point? Wait it out and hope the endless conflict becomes normalized enough. There is no "winning" condition left for the russians now, just degrees of losing. They (russian leadership) clearly only care about the perception of russian power and the perception of victory, so they will never stop unless forced since stopping will be admitting defeat.

  • They have no hope of gaining ground at anything that would reasonably end the war in the next 15 years.
  • They have no hope of convincing the world they are still a major power that needs to be placated and therefore push Ukraine into a bad deal and claim victory (the us has tried to and as we can see nothing really came out of it)
  • They have no hope of grinding down Ukraine in the near term as more and more fighting is automated on the Ukrainian side, while also having several times the losses as Ukraine.
  • They have no hope of developing their way into a victory with wunderweapons as they have lost a large amount of their best in ether the trenches or one of the largest brain drains in history (something that is not getting alot of coverage).
  • They have no hope of getting any more allies in the conflict to change the tide (North Korea being the last one to "help" does not really encourage nations)

At the end of the day, year, decade of war the russian strategy is just to not "give up". That is it, nothing more. They might have hopes but it is hard to see any coming to life.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

and even thier funding on far right parties in the west is at jeopardy

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 2 days ago

I think that might be the only operation they have done that worked. But yeah, not a lot to throw around anymore.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That seems to be what is happening. But how long do they really think it can last? Financially, they are already digging into their reserves to keep the war going. And they are going to run out of soldiers sooner or later, either via desertion or straight death. And as they have fewer soldiers to hold the line and less money to support them, they will be pushed back further and further until they are right back at their previous border or worse.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

I think that is one possible way this ends, but you might not like just how long they can keep feeding the meat grinder. I do think that if Ukraine can start taking russian land past the border you will start to see a change. The conscripts that as of now get to stay out of the trenches would be put in hard fighting (that the russians have shown they are not good at without taking massive casualties) and that would likely be the final part to russias internal collapse. Ether that happens due to them running out of prisoners/volunteers/poor people or russia itself being attacked.

[–] e_t_wright@union.place 2 points 2 days ago

@blarghly @M0oP0o You know, it's rather like Trump in Iran and Bibi in Palestine. All three entities are enmeshed in conflicts they cannot win, that are very unpopular both at home and abroad, that are destabilizing their economies (& now the world's), and are threatening their hold on power. I don't know that we have ever seen this happen in world politics before. Maybe we have. None can survive because they are adrift. It's a matter of time and opportunity.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The russian plan for victory has always been at some level to shunt the collapsing neoliberal governments that would oppose them in the Ukraine War out of the picture by stoking their rightwing parties so that they became neutral to the conflict.

This strategy worked pretty damn well in many respects, at the very least it was an astute observation of where neoliberal governments like the US and UK were heading and what kind of opportunities that provided, but the somewhat absurd reality is that all of that fragile political maneuvering that took enormous amounts of effort to orchestrate doesn't amount to anything if the Ukrainian military refuses to give up.

If you are better at war than the person who launched a war against you in a context of political theater that already condemned you to losing, you don't actually lose. War is NOT like politics in that respect, the frontline is a series of inherently individual events that culminate together into one of two opposing futures, you cannot foreclose which way those individual events will go in a broad brush stroke of collusion and corruption, war doesn't care.

Trump has tried his hardest to sabotage Ukraine's war effort and even with a huge amount of political momentum he still hasn't been able to fully stop US aid to Ukraine... and even when he does finally manage to do so it won't be enough to swing things back in russia's favor.

Ukraine was never supposed to win this war, even many of Ukraine's "allies" were secretly ok with Ukraine losing after a sufficient cost was extracted from russia to beat them down a bit. Ukraine made this calculus irrelevant however by demonstrating russia could not quickly and decisively win and in response the military industrial might of the world has acquiesced and consolidated behind supporting Ukraine in the long term. The simple truth this establishes is that there is now no actual feasible theory of victory for russia.

The only viable theory of victory for russia now is indulging in denial, and I think they know that even if they can't admit it.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm taking what you're saying 1-step further:

Russia's idea of victory, now, is the fascist-highjacking of as much of the West as possible,

& then the fascists/feudalists align, together, against civilrights, for the final beat-down, enforcing their oligarchic totalitarianism.

Total war against civilrights.

Both by communists ( what the CCP did to Tibet & to the Uyghurs was exactly imperialism's eradication ) & by the right: the goal's the same, exclusive factional-supremacism.

So, right now, the question pertinent is how long before Trump & Putin set-aside their differences, & both openly war against the autonomy & lives of the woke: Canada, Civil-War Part2, & the rest of the Americas, for the coming Trump dictatorship, & after China "backs"/supplants "Russia" within "Russia", then Putin, or "Putin" or some replacement/quivalent will be rampaging on Europe..

That's the "mass shooting" "win" they're wanting: to destroy that anybody else could ever be "great", so they get to be the final "important" ones.

Competitive-nihilism.

( & it'd be a win-win for China: grind-down the West, without spilling Chinese blood, & China can concentrate on the Asian war-of-consolidation for the same next-7-years,

AND since I expect both Netanyahu & the Saudi king to die soon, that'll leave the Middle-East to MBS, & he'll take Africa once he's got Iran & the rest sorted. )

Phase-change for the world, iow, same as WW1 was a phase-change.

Completely-different-footing.

_ /\ _

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It isn't working though and the reason is that fascists suck at war.

The people you are speaking of convinced themselves that drones and AI could replace human expertise in warfare and thus a new age of feudalism determined by "might makes right" had been ushered in.

They were wrong, what Ukraine has proven is that drones are an integral part of infantry and the expertise at flying drones as a human operator is even more valuable than just being able to point and shoot a gun. Dumb mass waves of shaheds have proven to be aerial target training for adaptive air defense networks and warfare has shown once again that powerful people cannot foreclose which way the tides will turn behind closed doors, what happens in war is what happens.

To put it another way, techbros and rightwing authoritarians have succumbed to the brainworms around AI and drones doing to warfare what the industrial revolution did to individual artisan labor, and it is delusional scifi slop thinking. That future has not and will not come into fruition any time soon and believing in its imminent arrival or worse that this future has already arrived is absurdist. This isn't however to say these technologies don't radically change warfare.

Unfortunately for us, both the ruling class of russia and of countries like the US are completely convinced of this delusion to the point that it has lobotomized their empathy. This is how waves of fascism grow.

The way waves of fascism crash is again, fascists are horrifically bad at warfare. This is because fascists are obsessed with the aesthetics of violence, warfare and domination and not the actual techniques, mental adaption, practice and knowledge that warfare requires. In other words fascists really only want to roleplay being warriors, they aren't interested in all the annoying parts of learning how to actually be good at it and adjusting to new developing realities that make old tactics irrelevant.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Ukraine has been on the brink of collapsing several times and only heroic efforts on their part and the persistence of their allies have staved off the worst.

My sense is that Putin is hoping that another crisis will open up in the future, and that it will finally bring about Ukraine's surrender. Of course, Ukraine and Europe (not sure about the USA at this point) are hoping that the same happens to Russia: that it collapses under the weight of sanctions and internal discontent.

Just think of how giddy Putin must have been when Trump was elected, or when Trump started the war in Iran and made oil expensive. How he must have thought Orbán was going to block EU support forever. Why does everything have to go wrong for Vladimir?

[–] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Putin still has minions in the EU post-Orban, but no doubt the Russian position keeps getting worse and worse.

The US no longer sends any aid to Ukraine I understand, they simply are delivering equipment that EU countries have bought on behalf of Ukraine. This was a big win for Putin, but nowhere big enough. Add in EU shell manufacturing capacity growing so fast, along with just the general revitalization of EU arms manufacturing, I think the US' support is becoming less and less critical. Given the broad support Ukraine enjoys in the US, I would expect this to reverse in a few years, so there is another clock ticking for Russia.

Honestly, putting myself in Putin's shoes, it's one of two things. First, he has so successfully insulated himself, he has no idea how things are going. Second, he's just continuing to attack because to stop would mean his ouster and likely execution.

So long as Russia continues the war, Putin has an easier time of fending off potential internal enemies. Thousands of ordinary Russians will suffer and many die, but that's a sacrifice he's willing to make to keep holding on to power.

The longer he can hold on, the more chances subverting can change for him.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

its mostly ethnic russians that are sent to die, hes avoiding st petersberg and moscow, thats where his influence and weakness is, since those are the 2 cities that are financially significant to putin.

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think this is it.

Ending the war sucks for Putin personally, and the longer it goes on the more likely it becomes for Ukraine or it's allies to suffer an intolerable crisis and sue for peace on terms favorable to Russia.

So the war continues even if there is no realistic chance to accomplish the States goals of the Russian federation.

[–] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

And it's not like Putin is going to the front, or will be impoverished.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago

russia desperately had KRASNOV lift its oil sanctions, they mustve been pretty close to collapsing if he handt lifted it.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

I keep thinking how giddy Xi must have been with this idiotic quid pro quo where Russia would attack Ukraine first before Xi pressed on some Taiwan reunification threat. Without losing a single soldier or piece of equipment, China has become the undisputed leader of the Axis of Authoritarian Hell Holes, taken influential control of the Central Asian republics today, will control eastern Russia tomorrow, can make any demand of Russia going forward with no chance of them saying no. They have secured all the resource materials, energy, fresh water that China will ever need, and gained naval use of the erstwhile Russian North Pacific, something they have never, ever had in 5000 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Initially, their theory was "many Ukrainians will welcome us, and we'll be able to rush their capital before they can do anything". TBF they got close on the second point. Then it revolved around outlasting the West's attention span.

Now it publicly seems to be "well, maybe if we blow up their power grid one more time", or "we couldn't possibly lose to Ukraine". Internally, Putin knows shit hits the fan as soon as the war stops short of victory, or seems like it's about to stop, so it continues. You can also see systems being moved to Moscow and St.Petersburg in open source intel, which is preparation for a possible civil war.

The spirit of this question might be more "how would you win", though. It's tricky, by all accounts Russia is running out of manpower and seems afraid to conscript more aggressively. Their foreign reserves will run out eventually too (although they're deeper than I had realised). Most conventional tactics or strategies that are scalable are being tried and not working. I guess they could try bombing some new things.

That leaves escalating to tactical nuclear weapons, and hoping Europe doesn't respond by directly fighting Russia. Of course, potentially ending the world might be too heavy a cost if you're not just a Lemming running a hypothetical.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The spirit of this question might be more “how would you win”, though. It’s tricky, by all accounts Russia is running out of manpower and seems afraid to conscript more aggressively. Their foreign reserves will run out eventually too (although they’re deeper than I had realised). Most conventional tactics or strategies that are scalable are being tried and not working. I guess they could try bombing some new things.

That leaves escalating to tactical nuclear weapons, and hoping Europe doesn’t respond by directly fighting Russia. Of course, potentially ending the world might be too heavy a cost if you’re not just a Lemming running a hypothetical.

There's a few other twists and turns before you go to tactical nuclear weapons - which may not achieve anything militarily. It's bad juju to run a war of conquest to own an irradiated wasteland. Big Poppa Xi probably wouldn't allow anything but a small show of force in terms of nulear weapons - a demonstrative underground detonation, let's say. But let's be clear - why would such a tantrum change Ukraine's defense calculus? This is already a genocidal war where russia presumes ukraine 'Belongs' to them and they have no right to exist. It's win or die, full stop. Tactical nukes wouldn't change that and if the Russians could precisely target military targets that efficiently, they'd already do it. The delivery systems are the same - only the warhead would be different.

If Russia uses any type of nuclear weapon, you'll immediately see China's support change for the worse from Russia's perspective, and you'd see an instant all-gloves-off response from Ukraine. There would be mass assassination & suicide bomber attacks in Moscow and St. Petersburg, as there would be absolytely nothing restraining Ukraine doing as much damage as possible if you're being incinerated out of existence anyways.

TL:DR - Can't see nukes making anything better for Russia.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

TBH I'm unclear on the exact specifics of how you use tactical nukes, but it's something different that would end the geopolitical stalemate. If they get lucky, and after whatever Trump-NATO drama clears the West is willing to abandon Ukraine, it's a victory. That doesn't seem like the most likely outcome, but there's more chance than none.

I see no evidence Ukraine is "pulling it's punches" right now, so from the Russian side making them angrier doesn't matter. (Hey, you wanted no platitudes)

China would be pissed. Unless they invade it's a different problem for later, though. Basically, the question was narrowly defined to be about chance of victory, so it gets a bit of a narrow-minded answer. If you're asking what the best option for Russia's general welfare is, it's to make a big show of renouncing expansionism, saying sorry and going home. If you're asking what's best for Putin, at this point it might be exactly what he's doing.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ukraine could absolutely be fighting a dirtier war than it is. They could be much more aggressive with attacking soft targets in big russian cities, car bombs, shooting up stores, assassinating government figures, blowing up civilian structures. They've already shown a capability and willingness to do this, assassinating Dugin's daughter and some high priority targets here and there over time.

But - unlike the russians, they have allies/supporters who care about moral conduct of a war and an ethical high ground, thus they don't bother with those kinds of attacks at scale. But if Russia were to start using nukes to kill large numbers of Ukrainians in a clear final act (a Final Solution, if you will) of extermination, there would be no reason for them not to fully unleash a terroristic campaign like that.

A tactical nuke is just a big shell - depending on a programmable explosive yield, it might blow up a single building or a few city blocks. Militarily, there isn't a single target that changes the trajectory of the war by being nuked - but politically and strategically, using any level of nuke probably creates way way way more problems for russia than it solves.

Why believe that? Because they clearly didn't use them at points where there were more concentrated Ukrainian defences that might at least at a simple tactical level, have an argument for their use. They could have used them against any number of fortress belt cities where Ukrainians were (or are still) stubbornly entrenched like Bakhmut, Sieverodonetsk, Avdiivka, Pokrovsk, Mynohrad etc, and expect that the Ukrainians would quickly retreat and reconsider their defensive posture for the next town down the road. But - the central contradiction here for Russia is that they insist Ukraine belongs to them - ergo is their property. Why would you nuke your own property, especially with all the other entanglements it presents. This is a war of land seizure by a mafia state looking to steal wealth and treasure from their neighbour. You can't extract value as quickly from a completely decimated moonscape, plus your reconstruction costs are higher.

They're not going to use nukes of any kind. And China probably would pull all support if they did, which would QUICKLY deindustrialize the Russian army to the point where they'd be using slingshots and sticks on meat assaults in a couple of months.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 1 points 1 day ago

Ukraine could absolutely be fighting a dirtier war than it is.

Doing war crimes is bad strategy. It's not free, it doesn't effect enemy military operations and, as we've seen in with Russia's actions in Ukraine, is effective propaganda for the enemy. If the Russian government can provoke Ukraine into it, it's absolutely in their interest to do so.

Because they clearly didn’t use them at points where there were more concentrated Ukrainian defences that might at least at a simple tactical level, have an argument for their use if you turned off your brain and soul and thought like a Russian does, for a minute.

Because actual Russians care about far more than just winning. There's also degrees of loss, and MAD is a very significant one. I don't know to what degree they're worried about preserving the value of Ukraine as territory at this point, but that would be another consideration, you're right.

Again, it was a very "technically increases chance of victory" kind of answer.

They’re not going to use nukes of any kind.

Yep, probably not.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I think it's a case of "guaranteed overthrow if we stop" vs "very likely overthrow if we continue". So they (Putin et. al) continue, hoping for a miraculous reversal of fortune. Which is not impossible, unfortunately.

They've cornered themselves, and have no strategy beyond delaying the inevitable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They don't win.

Russia is a shithole bully and deservs to collapse like USSR 2.0. The mask is off, the great secret super power has shown its corruot and rotten and all its teeth are gone. Its had its ass handed to it by a bunch of nobody farmers for years now in their illegal land grab.

Even "winning" wouod be an embarrassment.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There are people running the war in Russia. Generals. High level politicians. Putin himself. As OP said, we are trying to discuss what they think victory would look like for them at this point - which would be nice to know, since that may give us information on when they would consider ending the war, when their conditions of victory are completely unreachable. Chest-thumping platitudes about "Russia bad" aren't really relevant.

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 1 points 2 days ago

I mean, I am sure they think victory would be control of Ukraine on the whole.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Putin never had a strategy and he doesn't have one now. He's just trying to survive day to day. Ending the war would likely result in the overthrow of his regime so he's going to cling on for as long as he possibly can, consequences be damned.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Hard to disagree. Others have said he's a poker player who wants you to believe he's a chess player. All bluff, all the time. In a strongman state, the state of that strongman is all that really matters. And my two cents is that Putin is an overpromoted gangster ghoul, and your hypothesis is correct - it wasn't supposed to be this way. Ukraine wasn't supposed to be capable of such resistance, Putin understood his mortality and decided that there was never going to be better conditions than now to try and go for his 20th century revenge project. That's very, very dangerous for a guy who's so personally invested in victory or death - you're implying, and probably correct - that the war ONLY ends when he ends.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] metermatic26@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A lot of people would answer that the Russian strategy is go “carry on and hope for the best”.

But the Russians have been working very actively to sponsor right-wing extremists and manipulate public opinion, in nearly all Western countries. The election of Trump and Orban for example has been hugely beneficial to Russia.

Plan B I think would be to escalate the war by attacking the EU -forcing them divert resources meant for Ukraine- then sue for peace as soon as they’ve reached some sort of significant territorial gain in either Ukraine or the Baltics.

Its already evident that US won’t lift a finger if NATO countries were to be attacked. In fact Trump would likely use the situation to his advantage and try to extort Europe for money, power or territory.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gegil@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 days ago

I think that this war is in stalemate position for russia. It cant win, but continues to fight just to delay inevitable loss.

It does not matter whether huilo ends or continues war. Economics and society will collapse because of sanctions and being tired of putin.

Ukraine, while does not have ability to actually win back on front, can cause disaters in the back, and keep defensive positions with continued support from allies.

[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Russia still has large conventional warheads that can flatten city blocks or wipe out county towns.

They've been concentrating their efforts on making it through winter. In a few weeks the mud will have dried and they will begin their summer campaign.

Russia has not targeted the ruling class or oligarchs because they believe they can win them over.

If Putin were to fall out of a window, the Communist party would not feel any such constraints.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago

russias greatest weaknesses they havnt overcome is the winter apparently.

[–] testaccount372920@piefed.zip 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think the only chance that Russia has on the battlefield is making Ukraine run out of personnel faster than they can deploy drone units. But that seems to be a long shot, even with the recent news of Ukraine struggling to get enough new recruits.

Realistically I think it will come down to political pressure and/or internal unrest and/or finances running out on either side. Russia seems to be doing better on the first one, as many other commenters pointed out with regards to the rise of fascism in Europe. But on the other two Ukraine seems to be better off with burning refineries and all that.

[–] TwinkleToes@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago

Ukraine haven't even mobilzed people under 25. It's terrible what they've suffered, but they're nowhere near societal collapse. Russia has been in a nearly net-zero state of casulaties to recruits for nearly two years. And what's not stated there is the declining quality of the average Russian Fighting Man. They started off as a fairly professional mechanized army - destroyed that. Then they went with mass of men and materiel, as they always do, but perofmance and quality declined. Then they went to irregular units driving buggies, bikes and horses into combat. And at each stage, their forward progress and the cost of recruiting new troops rose higher and higher to absurd levels.

Even globally, there is a finite amount of idiots willing to die for a paycheque that likely won't be paid anyways. Just like how ISIS found there is a finite amount of devoted islamists willing to die directly figthing an organized enemy in Iraq and Syria, until they melted away. Russia wants you to think they're bottomless, and not just in terms of their depravity. But - nothing is infinte, and just being able to replace raw numbers without any regard to training quality is obviously leading to decreased performance of your slave army. Russia is losing net territory so far this year, and that's pretty darn hard to hide, or reverse. If they COULD be doing 1% better than they are now, they would be doing eveyrthing to achieve it. This is it - this is the most they're willing to do - throwing useless mouths into pounded rubble until they are blown to bits, and hoping Ukraine gives them something to go away. You know - like a terrorist does asking for ransom.

load more comments
view more: next ›