[Goose]

Is your position that Ukraine can't just "survive" the war: (1) merely a restatement of your earlier position that Ukraine won't have a viable economy without re-taking a substantial portion of the industrial heartland it has lost; or (2) an even more pessimistic view, which is that Ukraine's military will collapse if it continues the same basic strategy that it has used for most of the time since Thanksgiving 2022, even though Ukraine has inflicted far more casualties than it has suffered using that strategy and even though Ukraine has lost only a marginal amount of land using that strategy.

Some of both. The economic argument is as cogent as ever. However, IMO Ukraine's military may collapse from either of two different causes. The first is a collapse of morale due to no visible path to victory. While it is unquestionably true Russia has suffered many, many more casualties than Ukraine has, Russia is still there, still banging away. We have seen many signs of "weariness". Troops can put up with a lot if they believe their sacrifice and pain means something. However, if they start to believe it does not they can fall apart fast. The troops want to know "How does this end?" and if the answer is "We don't know, we have to keep fighting until Russia just gives up. It is an indefinite period of time." eventually the troops will decide it just isn't worth it. They will lose confidence in the leadership and things will fall apart very rapidly.

The other way is that Russia finally creates enough pressure across the whole battle front that Ukraine simply runs out of reserves. That almost happened in the north-east this year. Eventually even the poorly led Russian army will realize that stretching Ukraine out is the way to go. If there is nobody in front of you, even "meat" attacks succeed.  It may be that Ukraine has enough troops but fails to respond to a new threat because they fear a breakthrough else where. It may be they can't move the reserves they have fast enough. It may also just be there are two many damn Russians and it doesn't matter what Ukraine does. What has saved Ukraine from this so far is that the Russian leadership hasn't had the ability to execute this kind of strategy. That may persist, but I wouldn't bet on that. A very important factor in this war is that Ukraine cannot afford major defeats but Russia can. They can keep trying until they get it right or Ukraine makes a mistake.

Here's what seems notable to me about the last 1.5 years.  For Ukraine, the short time period in mid-2023 when it attacked Russia was Ukraine's most unsuccessful period of the war so far.  Maybe Ukraine just executed the attack very poorly.  But maybe being on the attack in this particular war isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Offense in "modern" war is ALWAYS much more difficult than defense.  No surprise there. Ukraine did make many mistakes in their execution of their attack. However external constraints had a lot to do with that. Ukraine had virtually no air force. The minefield clearing materials promised by the west were inadequate and even the promised items often never arrived. The offensive was delayed beyond the intended date giving the Russians even more time to prepare. It is also true that the Ukrainian staff had never executed anything like this offensive before, even in practice drills. Neither had the troops. Lots of reasons it didn't "work".

However, it is impossible to "win" a modern war by remaining on the strategic defensive. It is possible, at least in theory, to bomb your enemy into submission and not use ground troops at all. It is possible to interdict all their foreign trade so they economically collapse. However, Ukraine doesn't have the wherewithal to do any of these things. For them, a "conventional" attack is the only way to victory. Russia could in theory win in Ukraine by bombing them into submission. They are trying, but so far it hasn't worked. However, if western support dries up, it may. Russia also apparently believes it must attack on the ground to win, and is willing to pay the price.

Here's a different take. Ukraine might run out of troops before Russia ever would, but there are many other pressure points that could come into play before either side runs out of troops.  I don't have a strong view regarding Ukraine's optimal strategy, but it's completely plausible to me that the optimal strategy would be to play defense primarily, while also opportunistically attacking bases, troop formations, and critical infrastructure.  In the 1980s, Afghanistan ultimately succeeded against Russia with a similar sort of strategy (and Russia's dictatorship fell soon after).  Ukraine may not be as economically successful or as populous as Russia, but it has a of immense proportions leg up on Afghanistan on both those metrics.

IMO Afghanistan's strategy was wholly different than "playing defense". They had no "defense". The had no government. They had no "army". Russia occupied the entire country. It was the subsequent guerilla  offense that cause Russia to eventually leave. Ukraine could attempt that. At the beginning of this conflict many people expected exactly that outcome. However, Afghanistan is an entirely different place. Parts of it are very mountainous. There are lots of places to hide. The Afghans were both racially and religiously different from the Russians. The Afghans as a people are also much less dependent on "creature comforts" (like electricity and roads!) than Ukrainians are. The Afghans could also fight a very "low-tech war. They were socialized to do exactly that. Finally, Afghanistan was not in any way essential to Russia, politically or economically. The could leave, and did.

IMO there is no comparison at all between the two wars. If one of the two negative scenarios I presented as possibilities plays out, we may see a guerilla war in Ukraine. My guess is that it will end quickly and very, very violently. Putin is quite capable of genocide. Will we and other western nations stand by and watch?

[Goose]

Is your position that Ukraine can't just "survive" the war: (1) merely a restatement of your earlier position that Ukraine won't have a viable economy without re-taking a substantial portion of the industrial heartland it has lost; or (2) an even more pessimistic view, which is that Ukraine's military will collapse if it continues the same basic strategy that it has used for most of the time since Thanksgiving 2022, even though Ukraine has inflicted far more casualties than it has suffered using that strategy and even though Ukraine has lost only a marginal amount of land using that strategy.

Some of both. The economic argument is as cogent as ever. However, IMO Ukraine's military may collapse from either of two different causes. The first is a collapse of morale due to no visible path to victory. While it is unquestionably true Russia has suffered many, many more casualties than Ukraine has, Russia is still there, still banging away. We have seen many signs of "weariness". Troops can put up with a lot if they believe their sacrifice and pain means something. However, if they start to believe it does not they can fall apart fast. The troops want to know "How does this end?" and if the answer is "We don't know, we have to keep fighting until Russia just gives up. It is an indefinite period of time." eventually the troops will decide it just isn't worth it. They will lose confidence in the leadership and things will fall apart very rapidly.

The other way is that Russia finally creates enough pressure across the whole battle front that Ukraine simply runs out of reserves. That almost happened in the north-east this year. Eventually even the poorly led Russian army will realize that stretching Ukraine out is the way to go. If there is nobody in front of you, even "meat" attacks succeed.  It may be that Ukraine has enough troops but fails to respond to a new threat because they fear a breakthrough else where. It may be they can't move the reserves they have fast enough. It may also just be there are two many damn Russians and it doesn't matter what Ukraine does. What has saved Ukraine from this so far is that the Russian leadership hasn't had the ability to execute this kind of strategy. That may persist, but I wouldn't bet on that. A very important factor in this war is that Ukraine cannot afford major defeats but Russia can. They can keep trying until they get it right or Ukraine makes a mistake.

Here's what seems notable to me about the last 1.5 years.  For Ukraine, the short time period in mid-2023 when it attacked Russia was Ukraine's most unsuccessful period of the war so far.  Maybe Ukraine just executed the attack very poorly.  But maybe being on the attack in this particular war isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Offense in "modern" war is ALWAYS much more difficult than defense.  No surprise there. Ukraine did make many mistakes in their execution of their attack. However external constraints had a lot to do with that. Ukraine had virtually no air force. The minefield clearing materials promised by the west were inadequate and even the promised items often never arrived. The offensive was delayed beyond the intended date giving the Russians even more time to prepare. It is also true that the Ukrainian staff had never executed anything like this offensive before, even in practice drills. Neither had the troops. Lots of reasons it didn't "work".

However, it is impossible to "win" a modern war by remaining on the strategic defensive. It is possible, at least in theory, to bomb your enemy into submission and not use ground troops at all. It is possible to interdict all their foreign trade so they economically collapse. However, Ukraine doesn't have the wherewithal to do any of these things. For them, a "conventional" attack is the only way to victory. Russia could in theory win in Ukraine by bombing them into submission. They are trying, but so far it hasn't worked. However, if western support dries up, it may. Russia also apparently believes it must attack on the ground to win, and is willing to pay the price.

Here's a different take. Ukraine might run out of troops before Russia ever would, but there are many other pressure points that could come into play before either side runs out of troops.  I don't have a strong view regarding Ukraine's optimal strategy, but it's completely plausible to me that the optimal strategy would be to play defense primarily, while also opportunistically attacking bases, troop formations, and critical infrastructure.  In the 1980s, Afghanistan ultimately succeeded against Russia with a similar sort of strategy (and Russia's dictatorship fell soon after).  Ukraine may not be as economically successful or as populous as Russia, but it has a of immense proportions leg up on Afghanistan on both those metrics.

IMO Afghanistan's strategy was wholly different than "playing defense". They had no "defense". The had no government. They had no "army". Russia occupied the entire country. It was the subsequent guerilla  offense that cause Russia to eventually leave. Ukraine could attempt that. At the beginning of this conflict many people expected exactly that outcome. However, Afghanistan is an entirely different place. Parts of it are very mountainous. There are lots of places to hide. The Afghans were both racially and religiously different from the Russians. The Afghans as a people are also much less dependent on "creature comforts" (like electricity and roads!) than Ukrainians are. The Afghans could also fight a very "low-tech war. They were socialized to do exactly that. Finally, Afghanistan was not in any way essential to Russia, politically or economically. The could leave, and did.

IMO there is no comparison at all between the two wars. If one of the two negative scenarios I presented as possibilities plays out, we may see a guerilla war in Ukraine. My guess is that it will end quickly and very, very violently. Putin is quite capable of genocide. Will we and other western nations stand by and watch?