There’s lots of talk about what scenarios for Ukrainian victory might be - from total restoration of 2022 or 1991 borders, both of which unrealistic - to simply surviving and continuously degrading the russian military and economy until a collapse. But what is Russia’s victory?
At a Tactical level, they are getting limited, slow success by sending in small 2-3 man inflitration teams into forward areas until eventually Ukraine, who value the lives of their soldiers, decides to fall back. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Russia has “won” that land and gets to keep it. Even if Ukraine can’t re-take territory by force - Russia also can’t pacify the largest country in Europe with small infiltratiton teams that can eventually be picked off with snipers, artillery, drones and harassing counterattacks. They seem to think that they’re entitled to keep every piece of ground they can shove a soldier onto, and assume the Ukrainians will retreat after everything is obliterated, accept the loss and eventually stop shooting at them. Ask the U.S. how well that worked in Vietnam.
But what if they don’t? What if Ukraine continues to trade small slices of land for Russian soldiers’ blood - they can do that for a long, long, long time before they start to run out of land at the rate things are moving. Millions more Russian soldiers will die before, or IF they ever reach any kind of control of the land east of the Dneiper river. Russia’ Army’s options are move fowrard and die quickly, or stand still and die a little more slowly. This doesn’t seem to be a great plan. The Trump card (pun intended) has already been played to erode U.S. support, but Ukraine continues to resist strongly on domestic and European support.
What exactly is a lasting victory for Russia? You’d have to think holding what they have and being let to absorb it into their empire as productive territory. But if this is to be a forever war - then maybe Ukraine’s best bet is continue to bleed Russia’s idiotic hubris, while avoiding operational collapse. That seems a much better plan than whatever Russia is doing at this point.
Russia’s Strategic approach SEEMS to be - unrelenteing terror until you submit to enslavement. That doesn’t make much sense from Ukraine’s perspective. They might as well keep fighting, because the alternative is national destruction anyways. Putin’s plan is probably simpler, namely to just survive having made the worst imperial military blunder since Darius decided to go teach Alexander a lesson. But for Russians who can see past Putin’s dwindling life expectancy - what’s your plan, folks? Conquering the whole country seems both impossible to do militarily, to say nothing of how to do it adminstratively after the fact. You’d have to send in an occupying army larger than what you have now. Even if lines froze today, Ukraine can continue to deny Russia’s fruitful use and resettlement of the stolen land. Maybe infinitely. Permanent insurrection, rebuilding territory with money you don’t have at the expense of other regions who have gutted their male populations to wage this war, forever sanctions as the junior vassal to China in the axis of authoritarian shitholes.
Well done Vlad. Putin the Fool may end up being the worst Russian in history. And that’s saying something.
Yes, understood that it helps them creep forward. My point is - so what? How is this a good occupation strategy. The presumptive long-term goal of invasion is that you get to take, pacify and exploit territory won. Russia can push small units forward in insidious tendrils into soft spots. That’s not the same thing as moving new settlers in and exploiting the conquered territory. Occupation troops don’t sit in foxholes in fields - they live in barracks in population centers where economic activity exists to be controlled.
If Ukraine retains the ability to harass and kill occupation soldiers and bold pioneer Russian civilians who move into these targetable border areas, then the war becomes a permanent insurrection. It drains soldiers and resources like an open wound, infinitely unless Russia can completely destroy Ukraine’s ability to resist. You know - a war of total extermination. Which - putting aside the morality of the world standing aside and letting that happen in the first place - they don’t seem capable of doing, in any scenario. It’s like the snake that’s trying to swallow a porcupine. You’ve not thought this through, Russia. The worst part of war is often the pacification. Just ask the U.S. about their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. At some point, even the most passive, limp minded Russian serf might come to see that it hasn’t been worthwhile given the modest gains russia has achieved in 4 years.
For Russia’s conquest to work, they would need total capitulation, all the way back to the Dneiper at least, and into Odessa. Pushing infiltration teams a few meters a day will take another 5 million+ lives and equipment stocks that don’t exist, plus time they don’t have. This isn’t a great plan.