Does Ukraine have the edge in the war to defeat Russia's invasion? Is Russia's war effort less sustainable than Putin claims it is?
The war goes on. Although Russia's advances seem to have slowed down lately. Is it weather? Running out of steam from losses or logistics? Shifting forces to emphasize another area of the front? It's hard to say because the death and destruction along the front are dull roars that have become background noise. But time has not been kind to Putin's plans.
From the "Be careful what you wish for: Moscow file" comes this:
Instead of giving Putin the golden keysto the Ukrainian kingdom, Trump issued an ultimatum to the Kremlin: Cut a deal to end the war or, as he posted Wednesday on Truth Social, “It is only going to get worse [for Russia].”
Western public discourse is increasingly dominated by the idea that Ukraine is losing the war and should pursue a peace deal to avoid further losses. This perception likely arises from a disproportionate focus on visible land domain operations, which tend to dominate media coverage and are easier to follow.
Yet wars are won with strategies, not tactics. And in this area, Ukraine can demonstrate a clear path to holding Russia on the battlefield while inflicting what will ultimately prove to be unbearable losses. If that sounds questionable, remember that 12 days before Bashar al-Assad’s fall his regime looked absolutely secure.
Early on I noted that a war can seem stalemated but that the outcome can be on the knife's edge until it tilts and then rushes to one side.
I've stated I think Putin is putting up a Potemkin Village facade of confidence about Russia's ability to continue to lose whatever it takes in men and materiel to bulldoze Ukraine.
ISW recently addressed the economic side of this propaganda effort:
The Kremlin has launched an information operation that seeks to create the false impression that the Russian economy is performing well despite numerous continued indicators of macroeconomic distress.
Is Trump's assessment of Russia wrecking itself piercing the facade of inevitable Russian victory in the West?
The American president made some of the most critical comments he’s ever made about Mr. Putin, declaring that the Russian leader is “destroying Russia” by waging war in Ukraine.And I've certainly noted that my nervousness about Ukraine's long but slow retreat in the Donbas region may be misplaced. I've long--since the original invasion--encouraged Ukraine to preserve their ground forces by trading space for time:
If Putin does escalate to openly waged warfare against Ukraine to take eastern Ukraine, Ukraine needs to do three things: preserve the Ukrainian army; wage irregular warfare in eastern Ukraine to stress Russia's still-inadequate ground forces; and strike Sevastopol.Trading space for time to preserve their ground forces also inflicts heavier casualties on the Russians, which in the long run is more important than holding one more destroyed village.
The author of that good point made in the early link makes the case for Ukraine winning. She points to Ukraine's fight in other domains as advantages. And rightly points to the fact that smaller countries can win and have won, especially with outside support, as I addressed early.
UPDATE (Monday): Ukraine transferred the commander of the Donetsk portion of the Donbas front:
Russian forces have been slowly but steadily advancing in eastern Ukraine for more than a year in relentless ground combat that has caused massive military losses on both sides.
Does this mean Ukraine hasn't been trading space for time in order to kill more Russians? Or is it a reflection that Ukraine is ending the policy? Or is it a reaction to public pressure to hold ground, reflecting my admitted reaction to seeing the territory losses but not the benefits except in theory?
NOTE: ISW updates continue here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.
NOTE: You may also read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.
NOTE: I made the image with Bing.
