I'm pretty sure their endgame is to fend of Russia long enough until it ceases military action, possibly with loosing some border territory. Due to cost, sanctions and internal resistance, it's quite likely that they won't fight this forever.
The best scenario for Ukraine is that they're able to check the Russian invasion, and prevent troops from reaching and occupying Kyiv and other major cities, causing the war to drag on in a stalemate. If it goes well for them, the Russian will to press the invasion collapses, and they withdraw without winning any concessions. Note that I do not think this is at all likely.
The more likely scenario (that ends "well" for Ukraine) is that Russia successfully pushes its invasion to completion and installs a new government, but the invasion shifts to a phase of intense resistance (see, e.g., Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan) that ultimately collapses the moment Russian troops pull out, perhaps with similar speed as the Afghani government collapsed after the US's withdrawal.
Both of those scenarios assume that a combination of economic sanctions and unpopularity of the war are sufficient to prevent Russia from maintaining troops in Ukraine indefinitely, which is an assumption that may or may not be true (and I think there are very few people who are qualified enough to credibly opine on its truth!). If the assumption is wrong, then the conflict might stabilize in a conflict that looks like Nargano-Karabakh (~30 years), Cyprus (~50 years), or Korea (~70 years).
It's possible to theorize about a scenario in which Ukraine does so well that they're able to counterattack and retake control of Crimea and the Donbass, or even punch into Russia, but such a scenario is so unlikely that I think it should rightly be considered fantasy.
Much depends on the question if China is holding a lifeline for trading with Russia.
Considering international protest against Russia and that new Russian loans from China are currently blocked, it seems that Russia overestimated their friendship, which was "unbreakable" - https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1...
It seems that the unbreakable already shows some fractures.
Considering the vote against Russia wasn't vetoed by China and left Russia alone.
Additionally, i have more than average hope that the Russian population ( which has many relatives in Ukraine) is an underestimated variable by Putin in this mess.
Involving nukes would quickly get everyone involved. No one wants nuclear war.
No. Putin is not crazy; he knows it would be stupid to do so.
From what I've seen, he may be the most delusional human being alive.
Does not have to be the case. If the loyalists around him don't topple him he can sell this one way or another to the Russian public. I think a lot of people outside of Russia think it's some heavily censored, propaganda-fueled place. Most Russians are actually very skeptical of what their government says, it's very common to roll one's eyes at official statements. However, this does not change the wish to remain powerful even if just in a self-preserving image. If that does not work, the victimhood card also is often used successfully. If Putin can remain popular and the cronies around him don't replace him it would not have to be over for him at all.
Recent events have... not been kind to that theory. Putin certainly seems off. Nothing about this invasion makes sense strategically, and that was true even back when we thought it would be executed competently!
Russia could still unload a few nukes. If you can't take Kiev, you can always nuke it. But that has a number of problems. One of the smaller ones is it's really hard to maintain the "oh, that's not really an independent nation, they're really part of Russia" lie when you nuke them.
As with all asymmetrical warfare against invasion and occupation, bleed the invader until the price exceeds what they are willing to pay.
> then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it.
That would probably be terminal for the Russian regime.
> The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if they won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction, they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either
Nuking Ukraine over conventional escalation against invasion lowers the expected marginal cost of NATO involvement.
Deterrence calculus relies as much on confidence that not crossing conventionally understood escalation triggers will not provoke the response one hopes to avoid as on the confidence that crossing them will.
> Is getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only hope
The collapse of will to fight and support the war, whether in the troops or the public, is always the ultimate constraint on war, whether the leadership drives to actual collapse or stops in advance because they see it coming.
Or just Russia with USSR, after all they lost a war in Afghanistan 3 decades before the US.
I didn’t know before I moved here that the GDR authorities officially referred to the Berlin Wall as the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart), which matches some of Putin’s recent rhetoric.
Cargo planes dropping pallets will be legitimate targets. I wonder if Starship would be fast and high enough for enough time that it would be hard to destroy before it landed.
Starship is unlikely to be ready soon enough, but if it was, as it’s a rocket I would worry about it triggering ICBM alarms.
I suppose a tactical nuke could be useful against a massed army formation, or blow a hole in a defensive line. But a force defending in depth doesn't present those kind of opportunities.
Nuclear weapons could be strategically important in their destruction of productive facilities and people, and their destruction of crucial point targets (such as an opponent's nuclear missiles). And of course they are enormously destructive and dirty. But they're mostly terror weapons.
And there are the enormous downsides of these things, which overwhelm any benefit they might accrue. There are reasons no one has used these things since WW II.
Chemical weapons are a different matter, and I am a little worried they may appear before this is all over.
Additionally, killing large numbers of Ukrainian civilians (by conventional or nuclear bombing of the cities) would be crushing for the "liberating our people" narrative that Putin has relied on so far for support from the Russian people.
The invasion is costing Russia 20 billion $ / day and the sanctions probably hastened shortage of money.
There is not enough rockets for Russia invading more than 10 days ( source: ex- Estland security chief)
The end goal for Ukraine at this moment would be to prove itselve as a democracy and hopefully hasten eg. NATO entry as a mean to deter future "issues".
And strengthening it's bound with the West and use IMF loans to rebuild for a future again. Away from Russia as they already expressed in the past.
NATO is a strategic alliance why has it's origin to deter a Russian threat. I believe they proved it, although they don't check all the boxes ( eg. No terrorial disputes allowed, that is why Russia invaded in the first place in 2014 after they expressed the will to join NATO).
Unfortunately, Ukraine is next to the Black Sea which is crucial for the Russian fleet. So it's a very difficult topic. Forcing Russia to move it's fleet safehaven isn't realistic ( i think).
Cost of Ukrainian occupation is going to be high. Can that stop russians? we don't know, but they will pay in blood and money. This is not Syria or Georgia where small professional units could make a difference. This is a huge country with a big population and a long border through which weapons and volunteers will flow.
I had my doubts about Ukranian will to fight(I was born in Kyiv), I was wrong. I think Putin miscalculated quite a bit.
- Ukraine remains neutral
- No foreign weapons in Ukraine
No regime change, no occupation. I wonder why you’re talking about that. Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?
It's obvious. The people want to be free to control their own destiny.
Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country should not have the freedom to make their own choice whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?
The agreed upon diplomatic solution was the Minsk agreements, which Ukraine completely disregarded.
edit: HN is preventing me from replying to any more posts for an unspecified amount of time. We love our liberal values, don't we folks?
Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?
Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.
I mean, you have all the freedom to make yourself more lucrative voluntary chess playing companion than NATO, nobody is denying that. Instead you choose to be a failed developing totalitarian country bullying and attacking its neighbours and you wonder why they want to join NATO?
So it's Russia that completely disregarded Minsk II agreements.
Russia created a gray zone war in the first place. Support in that area for Russia was reduced from 54% to 14% over the following 8 years.
That's one of the reasons they invaded instead of continueing the gray zone conflict.
If you are suggesting that Ukraine is at fault, you are ignoring basic facts.
Yeah, support for Russia in these areas is so low that they were celebrating in the streets when Russia announced their recognition and people fled into Russia when Ukraine escalated hostilities.
Regardless of your political opinion, it doesn't negate the fact that people still want the freedom to choose
The whole "reason" of the russian invasion is the pretext of a "de-nazifikation" of the ukrainian government (which is a *insane* claim).
It appears very strange to me to think that Putin will accept anything other than a total regime change.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-calls-on-ukraine-milit...
Russia did not grow to its huge size by being a nice neighbor.
For many centuries, the Russian Empire, then its successor, the Soviet Union, have continuously threatened their neighbors, issued ultimatums to them and launched unprovoked attacks against them.
Every time when Russia or the Soviet Union gave an ultimatum to some neighbor, there were plenty of voices that insisted that any Russian demands must be satisfied in order to not anger the great neighbor, so that Russia would not have reasons for further aggressive behavior.
Every time when these supposedly wise voices have been listened and the Russian demands have been accepted, that has only strengthened Russia and weakened the neighbor.
The consequences were always that later Russia came with even more shameless demands or it just attacked and occupied partially or totally the neighbor.
There is no indication that Putin will ever behave in a different manner than his ancestors, so there is no rational reason to believe that accepting any Russian demands can guarantee that they will stop at that, instead of demanding even more later.
For decades, or maybe centuries, there was a joke that circulated in all neighbor countries of Russia:
Where are the frontiers of Russia ? Wherever they want ...
Look at Afghanistan, the US spent decades with troops on the ground, rebuilding every single institution only to have it all collapse before they even pulled out. In the end the people of Afghanistan didn't feel any ownership in any of it because they didn't build it, so when it came time to defend it they didn't.
I think that the US has learned from that, and in the 8 years since Putin invaded Crimea they have been equipping and training the Ukrainians to defend their own country. If the people of Ukraine make it out of this as an independent country it will a historical moment signifying that Ukraine as a nation is here to stay for the long term because their citizens believe in the institutions and the ideals of their nation.
What I hope for the most from this conflict is the development of stable democracies in both Ukraine and Russia.
It’s too optimistic to think this will be the end of Putin, but if by chance it happens, it will not be the first time a catastrophic war lead to the overthrow of the Russian government.
He believes in the Russian Empire, in the "Third Rome" and Ukraine is important because Kyiv was the capital of the first Rus empire 1000 years ago.
It's also the "origin myth" that gets propagated to the Russian armed forces (see Cathedral of the Armed Forces) and public. Also, will the oligarchs continue to support him it he just takes a scorched earth approach? Will the armed forces? If the myth fades who will follow?
Sorry to say, autocrats do not withdraw from a conflict like this regardless of attrition. Their power is their legitimacy and defeat is a threat to both their rule and probably their life. I mean look at how much flak Biden took withdrawing from Afghanistan despite being able to say that it was a horrible idea and someone else's fault.
This is a little different from Afghanistan and Iraq though, Russia's security concerns are valid and probably ameliorated by Ukraine as a failed state (as opposed to a NATO aligned state) so conquering and pacifying the country is not necessary.
The only real humanitarian solution is a diplomatic solution. I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.
Russia is on the offensive when viewing this conflict in isolation. Zoom out to geopolitics and it is very much on the defensive.
They are locked in this conflict and if they cannot achieve their goals they will escalate. They also own the most nuclear weapons of any country on earth.
This is what the Art of War says when it says not to put enemies in a corner.
This is also a very realpolitik take on this. It goes without saying that all of this is a humanitarian disaster.
They would never have been enough; that was the abusive partner going "if you'd just do x I wouldn't have to hit you so much". Consider the ease with which Russia violated their own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...).
I don't think, Putin wants radioactive wastelands so close to his border. And I think the political implications, even in Russia itself would be devastating for him.
Two options:
1) Push until Rostov, and take Black Sea access from Russia. If they manage to destroy a big portion of invading force, there will certainly be nobody to defend it, as they already "spent" a big part of Southern Military District force. They will also be under cover of their own air defence, and Russia not, as it already moved all its Buks into Ukraine.
2) A daring move to capture Volgograd. Why? Again, its would be defenders are in forests of Belarus now, doing nothing, running out of supplies. Volgograd is the most militarily significant city in South Russia.
Big portion of of Russia's low readiness units are stationed in the middle of nowhere in Urals, and West Siberia.
The elite Souther Military District (circle sign) units are already locked in Crimea, and inside Southern Ukraine
The motherland falls?