Three ways Ukraine can win the war
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2024
- There are several ways Ukraine can win the war, and pushing the Russian soldiers out is only one of them. In this video I highlight some other possibilities that I think are often overlooked in public debates about the war.
0:00 Intro
0:41 A war about territory
1:37 Not only one way to victory
2:45 Variant 1: A big counteroffensive
3:45 Variant 2: Sudden collapse
5:42 Variant 3: Regime change in Russia
7:55 Could this happen?
9:10 Time perspectives
![[TH] LEV vs TLN | TE vs VIT - VALORANT Champions 2024 DAY 3](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_AbmrWv2lO0/mqdefault.jpg)
"How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."
Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
Drawn-out wars are fought on many fronts, not just the battlefield. It's about access to technology and resources. It's about gaining support and building coalitions. It's about public opinion, both domestic and foreign. If a war doesn't make sense to the general public, (like the US in Vietnam) it cannot be sustained in the long run.
But you are forgetting something. USA has a freedom of speech and a free press. TV channells and newspapers can say the truth about the war to the public. Whereas in Putin's Russia press is just a propaganda tool, avarage Russian knows what Putin feeds them.
To some degree, a total war indeed. And aspects considered in the video can boost each other to happen
Ï
If you hold half of the resources of the world the other countries can't do nothing with their technology they can throw technology books to you and you can fire rockets to them.
Agreed, but the "long run" could be five to ten years. That's going to be an incredible loss of life and property.
Basically
1.Russian Tactical collapse
2.Russian Strategic collapse
3. Russian Political collapse
So nothing then.
Also u need to consider that Ukraine wont collapse while expect a russias collapse
@@freeloader247 Not much coherence in that reply
Do you have a point?
I believe that if Putin sees himself near one of those 3 hypothesis, he will order the use of a tactical nuke in kiev to force the collapse of the Ukraine government.
Not a chance in hell
@@MrLofwyr The ucraine goverment is not it's problem , the problem is at Washington and that will be one target on a all out launch . I mean few people know that mr Z campaigned under a peace program and got elected by all sides instead of the previous pro west president just to suddently switch to "get back Crimmea" and "let's ban ru language" .
Or to rename the 3 options:
1. Vietnam
2. 1917
3. Mussolini
Aka:
1. D-day
2. The 13 battles of the Isonzo
3. End of the Tzar.
Surely Vietnam is number 2?
@@LuminalSpoon did the US Army and Marines just all pack up and leave? The front there only collapsed after the US was gone. Number 1 is the realization that the war is too costly amd leadership calls them home, like Afghanistan
@@LuminalSpoon
The US didn't randomly collapse. Vietnam ground them down gradually fighting a brilliant war of mobility against a juggernaut trying to refight WW2.
And it also shows that you don't need to have the upper hand in battles to win the war. Vietnam suffered staggering losses and rarely achieved much in a direct frontal assault. But they didn't need to. They just needed to hold on and keep popping up all over, inflicting losses and demoralisation, and eventually US resolve broke.
During the Chechen Wars, there were armed pressgangs at metro stations in Russia to abduct men for conscription if they couldn't prove they had already served, that's how low Russian morale got. Putin correctly identified that if he declares a war and sends in private Conscriptovich who's forced to fight for $ 30 a month, it'll cost him his regime very soon.
That's why the 'special military operation was rigged up' and Russia's desperately low on manpower; They can only tap their regulars and paramilitaries and forced-conscription in occupied areas of Ukraine. They can't just conscript half a million random guys and half a year later show up with a big army; it would crush Russian civilian morale.
@@LuminalSpoon Seen from the N. Vietnamese perspective I imagine it looks like a hard fought struggle inch by inch, against first the French, then the Americans, and finally the South Vietnamese government (way oversimplified).
I'm thinking that there is not always a clear line between option 1 and option 2 in any conflict.
I'll add a wildcard: Belarus
If Lukashenko looses power (feels more plausible than Putin loosing power) Russia may loose 1) An important Ally and 2) territory from which to threaten Ukraine. A Belarus that doesn't welcome Russia may not need or want to Join NATO in order to become a major headache for Russia. Perun had a good video about Belarus and why they (probably) won't officially join the Kinetic fight.
I think the subject of Belarus and change of Belarussian leadership should be its own video.
Why not make that a rebellion of Putin's puppet states when they sence Russian weakness?
Regions of Russia too, may see suffering for Kremlin Imperial glory is NOT their desired futures
I'd say even a plausible threat to Lukashenko with wide spread protests might trigger this. Russia would need to help out to keep him in power, with troops it doesn't really have right now
@@RobBCactive Except that's not going to happen since Putin has spent the last 10 years feeding a narrative of nationalism. Its no more plausible than convincing a German of the foolishness of militarism in 1940, or convincing an American that they don't possess the world's largest penis. Nothing short of standing in the rubble of their self-regard will convince any of them otherwise. Convincing the Russians of their foolishness of embracing Putin will take precisely what it took to convince Germans that Hitler was an asshole. The West can't even be bothered to ramp up ammunition and arms production to meet the needs of Ukraine let alone do what it takes to bring Putin to his knees.
This is a very interesting topic. Civil War in Belarus could be in the cards. It´s a bit of a golden hour for the opposition. Russia is busy and Ukraine might be a willing sponsor. West wouldn´t like it tho
I assume that currently too much of Russia's military is in Belarus right now for any over throwing of its government. Any rebellion would end up a very bloody mess.
This is absolutely first rate and excellent content.
The scenario that seems most plausible to me is a collapse followed by a long and tumultuous agony of the regime.
Another scenario seems to me equally possible: the opportunism of vassal states that want to break free from Russia's grip, i.e. the opening of new fronts in Chechnya, Belarus and elsewhere, beyond Russia's capacity to handle more than one conflict at a time.
Unrest in the eastern oblasts is also possible. Asian ethnic groups are being disproportionately sacrificed for a war that does not concern them. This injustice, this blatant racism, puts the cohesion of Putin's centralised regime to the test. Why die for Moscow when Moscow sees them as expendable cannon fodder?
Totally agree. Even if wasn't named by the ukrainians, the possibility of a win by dissolution of the enemy is quite real, and just for reasons you named. Too many different nationalities who can't be happy with Moscow's rule and how their own resources and people get depleted to support goals of just few white russians. Russia is the last colonial empire on Earth, with a very authoritarian and centralized regime unfit to appeal the minorities. It doesn't help that white russians have actively colonized all the subject territories sometimes removing the original population, so there's more than enough reason for civil unrest to erupt once the forces to keep the iron fist are depleted due to this war.
The dictator of Belarus has distanced himself from Putin a bit now and recently crushed an uprising against his regime before the war started; there won't be another so soon.
Chechnya has been thoroughly purged with Kadyrov's death camps snuffing out anyone who might resist and his squads of goons (sometimes called the Tiktok Army) roaming the countryside. Chechnya used to have only 3 million people. After the purges and Russian rule probably a lot less. They can't resist through sheer lack of numbers.
You might as well expect Prussia to rise up despite the Russians not leaving a single civilised soul alive and living there in 70 years of purges.
It would however be quite curious if Japan took a plunge and liberated its northern islands. Or maybe Xi Jinping decides a good way to draw attention away from economic hiccups is to liberate northern Manchuria (even though that is even more thoroughly purged and is basically just wasteland). I mean at this point the Russian army can't even begin to resist the PLA if the two fought.
Chechnya is a major allay. There are no other fronts. Belarus is unlikely - they are not as stupid as Ukraine. No one else wanted to join grand war against Russia and rather negotiate.
Ukraine already lost the war - we are waiting till September to find out extent of the loss.
@@tomk3732 lol yeah bro they lost the war but it magically continues
@@eeeertoo2597 Germany lost by 1944 - everyone knew it, even by 1943. Yet the war kept going for a long time!
Great video as always Anders!
Interesting - thanks for sharing
Excellent, thanks 👍
Very good analysis. I wish I had found this site earlier.
You can still make it and see all the videos, im almost there ;)
As soon as I discovered him (the video about the sinking of the Moskva) I binge-watched all his Ukraine videos... Just astonishing stuff, in backsight 😱
Really one of the best for this particular topic (the overall strategic issues around the Russian war on a country they don't believe exists). Well, maybe that's just Putin who is confused on that point.
For the political philosophy aspects I reccomend Vlad Vexler's channel. Also very illuminating.
@@patricknorton5788 totally and absolutely agree about Vlad, too!
It seems the war is a classic example of a country launching a finite war against a country with infinite goals - similar to the USA in Afghanistan (finite) vs the Taliban (infinite). I always watch your videos with the keenest interest - I have not seen anything so insightful, even-handed and strategic in outlook - thank you
I am dumbfounded that Mr. Nieleen doesn't have more subscribers. I look through the media and I am frustrated by the amount of narrow-minded crap that is represented as news and opinions. Thoughtful, reasoned conversation and analysis that requires you to actually think about the subject matter is always a blessing. Like others, I bemoan the fact I did find him sooner.
He is day job is for DK MOD in war studies and is used by DR e.i. our BBC for "expert" explanations on military topics they allowed to talk about as one of the expected(/perks) parts of such a job. This is what's the journalistic standard looks like for sources. He is not the only DK professional we have seen during this war ether. We also saw this under corona that both medical officials and independent professors was used to guide the public in the real choices and informations. Often in smaller media interviews these guys even openly say they are not allowed in politics or get yelled at by ministries for publicly in interview connecting unrefuteable strategic realities that are not like by political, departments or even senior military officers. You know like Perun but it's their job and they do it well and are getting a decent freedom to inform the public or at least reporters. Well they will try to mute them when buying gear obviously instead of explaining the real choices leaders are forced into: both leadership and public don't get this luxury historically. Also even specialised journalist sucks at asking the real interesting questions or setting up the theme of a segment to the point this is way better. *Edited for spelling*
I am surprise he has so many subscribers. He is a liar and is not aware of the reality on the ground. Or, perhaps, he is pretending. But, it doesn’t matter. His job is to persuade gullible American his propaganda bullshit - so they don’t mind sending billions of dollars overseas.
The best example of number two is Germany in 1918. Germany won WWI in the east, and then transferred their army to the west. In July of 1918, Germany was holding its own. In the summer of 1918, Germany was in a similar situation to Russia's situation today. Germany collapsed domestically and on the western front in the fall. I think it is likely that minority groups in Russia as well as neighboring states will begin to see Russian weakness and bring pressure. Belarus may collapse soon as well. I think we're in for a very interesting autumn.
Germany was getting their ass kicked, thoroughly!
But the German propaganda machine kept telling both the public and soldiers that victory was just around the corner!
Yes, there were issues domestically, but they didn’t influence the war effort much, however the war and the toll it was taking on especially the lower class workforce did cause issues domestically!
Of course German leadership, and especially the movement that later would lead to the creation of the NSDAP, were busy framing the loss as being caused by what we now call the "Dolchstoßlegende"!
russia is in no where near as bad of a state as germany was in 1918, germans were starving, literally after 4 years of brittish blockade. russians today barely feel there is a war going on, for them its "somewhere out there"
Also, Germany didn't "win in the east"
The revolution happened in Russia and civil war broke out, so the Russians simply had more important things to do than fighting the German Empire, or what was left of it at the time...
@@gorillaguerillaDK Also, the Germans bankrolled the Russian Revolution by sending Lenin there with a huge pile of gold.
@@gorillaguerillaDK Umm, yeah. When a country ends a war by signing a treaty that gives the other side large parts of its territory, it’s not because they had something better to do; they lost.
Annexation would burn a lot of bridges? Hmmm...I wonder how many bridges are really left to burn...
He was referring to options for Putin. The US could walk away from Iraq, but it wouldn’t be an option for us to walk away from Alaska because it is a part of the country.
@@johnramsey2009 Alaska was not invaded by the US, Crimea was invaded by Russia.
@@yurinator4411 Right... But every country is bound more deeply to defend what it considers to be it's home territory. So long as Russia does not annex the Donbas, it's something that they can wipe their hands and invent some excuse to leave. They accomplished all their goals and go home. The maker of this video is just emphasizing that once you've gone as far as annexation and you assert that this territory is part of our country now. It's very difficult to say that you accomplished your goal and you had no reason to stick around any longer. It ties Putin's own hands so far as his options are considered.
Perhaps a better analogy would be that the US could leave Afghanistan having secured some promises from the Taliban. The US would not be able to walk away from the 51rst State of Afghanistan if it become a part of the country.
@@johnramsey2009 But the annexation is already in the works, they are preparing to stage these referendums and the annexation papers are already drawn-up, all that is left to do is pencil in the date. After that date, any Ukrainian counterattacks will be deemed as "attacks on the territory of Russia" which is precisely the pretext Putin needs to declare general mobilization. I really don't see what other bridges can Putin burn, that he has not already burned. The US said that they will not recognize the annexation. Great. It doesn't make any difference to Putin, really.
You and Perun are my two favorite commentators on the war.
Good summary. It is hard to see this ending anytime soon.
Top quality speaker. Thank you
Amazing vid 👍👍👍
Very informative.
Refreshing to see some different approach to the conflict. I see all three options possible, but I would adjust option 2 in a way that it matches option 3. There are two ways to get removed from office, one is significant losses (option2) or significant failures (option3) like loosing Crimea. I do not think that anybody will sign any contract with a contract breacher: Budapester Memorandum, Ukraine-Russia friendship contract, Minsk I and II ... All breaches happened under Mr. P. thus I do not see option 2 without option 3.
The war is definitely a drain of Russia to the tune of 1 billion USD a day. Ukraine is not Chechnya Afghanistan, Syria, where the Russians spent a lot lower to sustain their war efort per day since in thoise wars they were fighting poorly armed insurgents, in Ukraine they are fighting a tough strong conventional army armed with the latest NATO weapons. The war in Ukraine is definitely not sustainable. esp. as the 1st world is putting the screws on the Russian economy and tightening it. The Ukrainian army is getting stronger due to Ukr recruits getting trained properly to do operational offensives and getting better armed with NATO weapons while the Russians are getting weaker with massive equpment manpower losses, economy going down more, along with more sanctions and recruits with lower morale and training. This war is simply not sustainable for Russia the longer the war goes. and Putin and the Russian command simply does not know how to end the war where their current Russian regime will politicallly survive. Moscow can walk away from this war, total withdrawal back to pre war borders in return for a return of status quo relations with the west but this will have massive political implication which can get Putin removed from power permanently. But knowing Putin's pyschology, he is a tough fighter and will fight on until either he dies or he wins or in his mind he won while not achieving his original goal silver and bronze medals stiil OK. The longer the war goes the worst will be the post war effects on Russia. and can throw Russia into civil war. when Putin goes and there is no strong leader to take over or there is political chaos in Moscow as well as economic collapse which is the worst case outcome for Russia in this war.
🙏🙏🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦👏👏
excellent analysis
Flot analyse, fremført eksemplarisk.
There might be a fourth option, which is basically a variation of the second option: Collapse in stages. Russia withdrawing
1. from the north
2. from Kherson area
3. from Crimea
4. from the south
5. from Donbas
I think Crimea will be the last to go, unless Russia suffers an internal political collapse of enormous proportions. This is not low probability as time passes. The chance increases a small amount every day that Russia continues its invasion. It’s analogous to compound interest.
Good article! It can also be a victory of combined aspects named. The one way can also increase the likehood of the other ways. I expect this war to go well into 2024. Here some speculations/predictions
Summer/Autumn 2022 :
Russia losing half of the southern occupied zones, those north of Dnipro rivier and Cherson
They will continue to adapt their supply lines to deal with Himars missiles
It comes down to a stalemate but no frozen conflict, both sides
continue to inflict serious damage to the other. Attrition.
Ukraine will deploy extra forces, also those trained abroad, stabilizing their
positions. Russia will deploy more troops as well, but training will suffer
Winter 2022-2023
Europe will suffer mildy under shortages of gas, but copes. New air defense units will be deployed in Ukraine at significant levels. Abroad training contnues. Due to continued shelling of Kharkiv and other cities, U.S finally decides to deliver Atacms, missiles with a range of 300 km.
Meanwhile, Russia annexes more gained Ukrainian territory. Ukrainians hit targets deep into occupied zones, as well across the borders with Russia. When they start destroying Crimean targets like port facilities, ships and vital depots, Russia finds the pretext for the neccesary mobilization.
Also, the first training of Ukrainian pilots on western aircraft finishes. First batch of fighters are promised. Germany finally gives the green light for sending more heavy equipment, including leopard I tanks. Ukraine now solely depends on western weapons and ammo to defend itself.
Spring 2023
The Russian mobilization kicks in, giving some morale boost and strength to the Russian forces. Newly formed or restored combat units are able to maintain the cohesion of the frontlines.
Also, the crumbling Russian economy is being transformed to sustain the current war effort. Since Ukrainian attacks on Crimea, its considered a war instead of a special operation.
Ukrainians upgraded their air defenses and the effect of russian missile attacks on cities are decimated. Also, their Air force uses operation western fighters to drive back their Russian opponents for the skies.
In the south, the front remains static. On the east, Russians finally manage to take Sloviansk and make minor advancements into Donbask - at great costs. Later, this gets into a stalemate as well.
Summer-Autumn 2023
Leopard and other heavy equipment tanks arrive on the Ukrainian frontline. Russian armies are enforced with new troops, but with lower standards of training.
With a classic artillery doctrine, they commence a new big offensive to take the rest of the region Donetsk. However, lessons are learned by Ukrainian defenses and this operation fails. Increased numbers of himars platforms and western SPG batteries derail the potential of russian barrages, logistics are a nightmare.
On three points, Ukrainians cross the southern rivers into the rest of Cherson and area's north of Crimea. Two Bridgeheads succeed, while the third managed to distract and bind some Russian forces. In a few weeks, regular troops and partisans kick out the panicking Russian forces.
Winter 2023-2024
A furious Putins vows a decisive operation in 2024 to break the Ukrainian will to fight once and for all. During several months, Russia does seem to form new battlegroups and reorganizatons, with some decent improved logistics.
On the other side, Ukrainians are preparing and consolidate their gains and positions. Both air and ground defenses are improved and ready to counter any serious Russian attack.
Spring 2024
When the mud is gone, Putin is gone as well. A bloody and messy but succesful coup removes the president from office as more key figures. For months to come, Russian leadership is in disarray, so do its forces.
Without central command or orders, massive amounts of Russian troops leave the frontlines, returning home. With some encouragement of Ukrainian forces, almost the entire frontline collapses.
Only some defensives in the eastern parts of Donetsk-Luhansk hold ground.
Crimea is a chaotic place, but Ukrainians get a firm beachhead and advance to Sevastopol, meeting decent levels of resistance.
At the end of the spring, a interim-Russian government agrees on a cease-fire. In coming months, peace negotions are to be expected with a very strong position for the Ukrainian side and its allies
Exactly! Just like Biden administration in denial of recession in the US and blaming Putin for inflation, one can always change the meaning and definition of victory. 😂😂
Interesting thought experiment. Could be...
You forget about the rest of the world and the récession. A lot of countries ready to go bankrupt will not help the war on either side
@@poucine832 Or Putin suffers a heart attack next week and every prediction goes out the window.
I don't necessarily agree with all those predictions, but it's an interesting general outline.
You are WRONG. Ukraine ALREADY has ATACMS
This video must have been made before Russia came out today (7/25/22) and announced that their "not war" against Ukraine is most certainly still about regime change.
Good observation. Yes, I did make the recording before that announcement by Lavrov. But on the other hand he seems to be making announcements in all directions in rapid order these days.
Good point. :). That wasn’t to knock your video overall. It was very good and I enjoyed it. Thanks for making it.
Everyone should not be taking the words of these thugs so literally. They say sensationalist things just to have something to say, and sound like someone on 'top' of things. They know that the average simpleton in their country hears it and is content that they are are smart and strong.
But anyone looking at the overall pattern of their statements, and has at least a good idea of the whole situation can see these statements as the rhetoric/propaganda/irraticness that they are.
Should be taken as seriously as the loud guy in the pub at around 11.30 in the night, i.e. almost forgotten about the next day.
thanks guy from reddit!
Excellent analysis - as usual. Thank you.
I still think the elimination of the RAIL section of the Kerch Bridge is paramount. Stop putin from bringing in trainloads of tanks and supplies every day - but still allow them a route to retreat from the imminent Ukraine advance. Perhaps it would be too much to take out the entire bridge, (were that even possible) but the high accuracy of the HIMARS and ML270's will allow that sort of precision.
That is still a tactical thing. More importantly, the bridge isn't that important. It's already a long way to ship military stuff down to southern Russia, across the bridge, then backup through Crimea. (i.e. around the Black Sea) Far better now to bring equipment straight to the Donbass region via western Russia. The bridge is only critical if the land route is severed and even then, that only helps take south-eastern Ukraine and Crimea -- not the Donbass.
Yes, take it out as a blow. But it isn't going to force a Russian pullback or surrender. Supplies can already follow shorter routes along the coast.
The Kerch bridge is of little importance now there is a land bridge all along the coast. It was only important before that land bridge was established. The Coastal route for supplies is now way shorter. An attack on the bridge is more about PR than tactics. Looks good in headlines but makes little difference in reality.
I agree. One thing most don't realize is there are TWO bridges, one inbound and one outbound. Ideally you would want to damage the inbound bridge so soldiers have a ready path to retreat, and the possible loss of the bridge would make soldier nervous and cause them to want to give up. UA does not have weapons that can reach. If they can break through Zaporizhya then perhaps they can reach it. With the 300km rockets they could hit it. It does have air defense, so it won't be easy.
For those who say the bridge isn't important:
1) they waited till after the bridge was built before starting the war - if it wasn't for Covid the war may have started in 2020.
2) most new soldiers undergo training in Crimea
3) its a major route of supplies to the south
4) retaking the dam that supplies water to Crimea was Russia's number one objective, ahead of even taking Kiev
5) Crimea remains Russia's primary objective, the rest of territory matters only because it helps secure Crimea.
6) I'm going to repeat 5 because everybody misses it Crimea is what Russia wants most. It manufactured a civil war in the Donbass simply to distract Uk from going into Crimea. It started the war because Crimea was running out of water, and it was worried that Crimea could be attacked from the mainland when it went forward with its next (but still not ultimate objective), Istanbul. This why we are stuck with Turkey and vice versa.
The land bridge in Donbass is misunderstood.
The Russians move everything (even trucks) using rail. Take a look at the rail network in Donbass. To get anything from southwestern Russia to e.g. Kherson or even Mariupol, you have to go through a section 10 to 50 km southwest of Donetsk to Volnovaka. There is no protected route along the coast. Take a look at the NASA fires map -- there are artillery strikes all along the D-V segment. I suspect that rail traffic through that segment is risky enough that Russia greatly prefers going around the south side of the Azov sea and across the Kerch bridge, which adds a day to the trip.
If Ukraine breaks the (dual) rail link over the Kerch bridge, and the Donetsk-Volnovaka link, Russia loses the Kherson - Vasylivka - Volnovaka - Mariupol mass, all the way down and through Crimea.
Now, they've already decided to move the Black Sea fleet to Novorossiysk, but the move isn't done yet and can't be done quickly. Sevastopol can be supplied by sea for a very long time, maybe forever. But if the Ukrainians get within rocket range of Sevastopol's harbor, Crimea is cut off and done. There are lots of political problems with that, and Ukraine is probably better served just cutting off Crimea's water supply, applying some pressure, and letting the Russians use a lot of effort to keep Crimea running. At minimum this will tie of naval resources that would otherwise be used to support Russian troops in Mariupol.
Note that Ukraine does not have to destroy the bridge to break the rail link. There are many kilometers of single-path between that bridge and the rest of Crimea. A break anywhere along there will break the link.
@@IainMcClatchie Crimea's water supply was off since 2014, it made no difference. It's only required for crop irrigation, not for the population.
I love your choice of topics and considered delivery. I do wonder what victory for Ukraine looks like, does Ukraine win only if Russia is kicked out. Could losing Crimea and parts of the east still be a victory.
Victory for Ukraine now looks like loosing Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporoze and say Kharkiv. I would say that it would look actually good if they only lost that much. It would also mean victory for Putin.
Loss for Ukraine is loosing more or all.
@@tomk3732 What the hell are you saying? Russia got pushed out of most of Kharkiv and are actively losing ground in Kherson, they have also made close to 0 advanced in the Donbass in 20 days
@@eeeertoo2597 Russia did not loose any ground around Kharkiv for like 2 months. Same with Kherson - no lost ground as well. In the last 20 days they have made major advances in Donbass - just today they finally taken over a power plant that was in the south. UA defense lines in Donbas are slowly colapsing again and we should see another major gain like Lisichians - Severdoneck soon. Then one more step and Sloviansk - Kremators are taken ==> end of special operation.
@@tomk3732 They lost almost all the ground they were occupying in Kharkiv in one push.. and they’re steadily being pushed back in Kherson.. meanwhile Russia has been taking maybe one settlement a day if they’re lucky and haven’t even reached the gates of any big town to even besiege them 🤦♂️ follow the actual war
@@tomk3732 You’re delusional AF. Also, it’s lose, not loose.
Hi Anders, thanks.
That train of thought could be applied to any war in History: You either neutralize the last enemy combatant - which is extremely rare -, or strike a peace deal that respects your demands. The later often becomes easier if there's a change of leadership in the adversarial block.
The problem is that for Ukraine to strike a peace deal, the Russia have to accept these demands. And unfortunately, the Ukraine is not in position to be making the conditions.
So this video is just a "wishful thinking" type. Where the Ukraine can only win after some divine intervention
Or just keep killing hour officers and blowing up your logistical centers...
I think that Ukraine will be taking back Kherson as their first step. As a political manoeuvre they should then move on to Crimea as the consequences of any loss here to russia are immense.
But how - Ukraine latest offensive there was soundly crushed with huge losses. Russia is slowly gaining and setting up for another mini collapse in Donbass - it looks like Putin will take back Donbass by September.
Russia will mobilise and maybe use weapons of mass destruction to defend Crimea
You say "Russia will" when you mean the Kremlin "will attempt"
1)
They mobilized months ago
2)
Anyone who pushing for the use of nuclear weapons will mysteriously die from a sudden fall down a staircase
@@JesterEric Not sure about mobilization. They may not be able to supply a much larger force or sustain public support as the economy is tanking. As for WMD’s, what are they going to do, nuke what they are claiming is their own territory? Kill what they are calling their own population? And if they did do it, outside Crimea, say next door to NATO, the current sanctions against them will seem like a friendly pat on the back.
Then Moscow then Manhattan and then berlin
But this is the strategy Ukraine has been following from the beginning. Knowing they can't match the Russians' firepower, they've fought a defensive war that is meant to slowly bleed the Russian military to an eventual collapse. Even with this so-called offensive in the south, they've focused more on destroying Russian logistics and command structures than actually retaking territory.
Depends on how much assistance they get from the west and from NATO. The western alliances could kick Russia's arse real quick if they wanted to escalate.
The usual reasonable and deep analysis. One note though: I'm absolutely certain that when you show up with a nice shirt and tie, you're also wearing shorts and flip flops...
Very intresting to watch this video in may 2024.
I really like your take on the different outcomes of the war. It makes me think about a concept called 'the infinite game' (from Finite and Infinite Games, James P. Carse), in which he explaines that there is no such thing as winning, only players can drop out of this 'infinite game' when they don't have the resources or will to perpetuate the game.
Nazis form Kiev will lose. DONBAS will NEVER be Ukraine Again.
Perhaps a fourth scenario which is Putin retains power but economic collapse forces a withdrawal in order to make a peace deal. Parts of that you have covered but I'd see it as a specific scenario. My bet on the outcome though, would be a frozen conflict, Korea style.
The frozen Korean War depends on N Korea having China as a backstop. They would probably have to do the same thing here by helping to prop up Putin and/or Russia to maintain the balance of force needed to keep the conflict frozen. I don't see them sending in troops like they did in Korea, but possibly backing them economically and diplomatically (at the UN, for instance).
@@edwardblair4096 A frozen conflict does not require China to be involved, Russia has the economic mass to continue a war indefinitely. All it requires is both sides to tire and a cease fire be agreed, as it was in Korea. The Donbas parallels North Korea, with Russia itself paralleling China in the Korean situation.
That's option 2 sudden collapse.
Thanks again! And one for the algo.
Godt relevant show med gode pointer
I think if Ukraine start having sucess with senario 1, the troops with low moral will see that they dont eaven have advances and then the effect of low moral vill accelerate.
3 wont happen. 2 might happen. Even if Putin does lose power his follow up will probably continue the fight
I dont think so. Why would a successor carry on with something which brought down a power like Putin?
Hi Anders, Just found out (with some delay, obviously) you referred to my blog. Thanks very much for the positive comment. Please keep up your own good work!
You've heard of Pie in the Sky? Well this guy is feeding you some of that pie....
I have to say that I disagree with your approach on that one. For one main reason: This war is ideological. I think the closest comparison would be the second world war, but on a much smaller scale. Hitlers motivation was also ideological, which is which there was no way out or reasoning. The "Ukranian Nazi Junta" needs to be defeated and the "Russian peace" needs to be achieved.
Of course this is complete bollocks, but that's the ideology. So I think unfortunately this is the starting point.
The first way would probably work, I think everyone agrees on that one.
However when it comes to a "sudden collapse" I don't see how this could happen. If the US would have kept Afghanistan for ideological reasons they definitely would not have left. When it comes to influencing Putin I don't see how this could happen.
Keep in mind that the siloviki all "agreed" on the "special military operation". If someone would publicly change his mind he would get purged. If someone would try to work with others secretly there'd be a pretty high chance that he'd get ratted out, even if it's only about influencing Putin, not more severe actions.
When it comes to a regime change we have to ask ourselves how likely that is and if it would happen wether it would lead to a sudden major change. I think unless Putin somehow suddenly finds his end a regime change won't happen. I don't think that there's any realistic way to topple him for now. And a regime change still wouldn't change the ideology. It might or might not lead to a gradual change, but I think a sudden change would be rather unlikely.
However despite this I'm sure that there are other ways than the first way, I just don't know what they could be. I think sooner or later _something_ will happen, no matter wether Ukraine regained their territories or not, but no one knows what that "something" would be.
I think the reason the 2nd way is actually plausible is because it's exactly how russia withdrew from both the North of Ukraine and Snake Island- the russian command realized they couldn't win those fights and so instead opted to withdraw and pretend with propaganda that was fine. So perhaps if Ukraine is able to recapture Kherson and make progress in other areas Putin may decide the best course is to declare "victory" and retreat to defensive lines, perhaps retaining Luhansk. While these fights are in theory "ideological" it seems the russian regime will prioritize its own survival rather than actual ideology at this point but idk.
"However when it comes to a "sudden collapse" I don't see how this could happen."
One possibility that comes to mind is a major civil unrest happening in Russia. The probability might be rather small, I admit, but it doesn't feel like impossible. The economic damage on Russia continues to mount. People might protest if life gets too hard (e.g. if pensions are slashed) or some regions might develop secessionist movements. If both of these happen on a large enough scale there might be a period of anarchy which would make sustaining a war effort outside the borders of Russia untenable. But, like I said, I'm not assigning a large probability to this.
The "sudden collapse" scenario might blend with the "gradually reconquest" scenario. The front lines dramatically change over the course of a few weeks, but settle into a new position.
Would that new position be enough to satisfy Ukraine or Russia?
Ideologically speaking Russian destiny is shaped over centuries, not months or years. Crimea is essential for Russian pan-slavic ambitions now, whereas Ukraine can be dealt with later. Rome waited a hundred years before finishing business with Carthage.
It might just be a mixture of 1. and 2. Number three seems too unlikely. There's too many awful fascists behind that would just take his place.
Lol I bet you call everything you don't like fascism
@@prometheusjackson8787 only fascist things.
I kinda thought about it as being primarily the second way instead. It is mostly about draining up the Russian military, and the land you currently hold at any given point is fairly irrelevant. Kinda like Starcraft 2 and such computer games.
Did you put on lipstick for this video or have you adjusted the colors?? Good analysis btw.
I think it's lipstick. Amateurish make-up.
Camera does this
@@Motofanable Yeah, the colors are too saturated. No lipstick, though. 🙂
I love this video, but I don't think that the Afghanistan parallel works very well. Russia and Ukraine are both contiguous, and much of their population could be claimed by one party or the other. What it means for Russia to decide that they've had enough and withdraw, changes quite a bit. They aren't going to simply withdraw from Crimea, Lohansk, Donetsk, and frankly, Kherson, or even Karkiev. They're currently pretending that Odessa wasn't the single most important target. And that's after abandoning the quick coup and Rusification strategy.
Most eastern ukranians speaker Russian and have family ties to Russia. They prefer to live under Russian control.
I think if putler is no more then russia might just withdraw like a good will gesture
You’re making the mistake of conflating Russian speakers with ethnic Russians. To whatever degree that Ukrainian Russian speakers felt sympathetic to Russia, that support has been evaporating over the last six months. Even Separatists in the Donbas are rethinking their loyalty to Russia as they realize they will have even less independence as a Russian colony, and they see the brutality of the Russian military.
@@MarcosElMalo2 I totally agree with your sentiment here. I used the vague word "population" Because it dodges a more complex conversation around mixed languages, ethnicities, and even loyalties.
If somehow Ukraine is able to flip Belarus to become Integrated with it instead of Russia as an "Union State" it would fundamentally change the security and stability of the region.
Can't see that as Belarus is ethnically Russian and Russian speakers. But Belarus could have revolution if the army is forced to war, it may be the weak link...
If somehow Ukraine agreed not to join Nato during 3 months of negotiations, the war wouldnt even start...
@@WrathOfLust Ukraine is a sovereign country. It can join NATO if it choses to. It doesn't need Mr. Putin's permission to do so.
@@andyf10 and you can choose to cross the street on the red light and get hit by a car... NATO is a military alliance dedicated against Russia, so sure, Ukraine can join NATO if it wants to be destroyed. But common sense must be present, you dont kick a tiger that lives next to your house.
@@WrathOfLust Thing is, it is being destroyed now, and isn't a member of NATO. If it was a member, it would not have been attacked. Joining NATO is not kicking anyone, it has given safety to the Baltic states and others.
Tak for dine videoer, hvad er din vurdering på at Rusland skal betale erstatning for alt de har ødelagt? da Putin siger det ikke er krig, er det så hærværk der skal betales erstatning for? Kan pengene indeholdes i russiske værdier i vesten?
mvh. Jens-Ole Landschoff
Jeg Takker 😁
I think all 3 points are connected in the end if ukraine can keep pushing.
Some territorial victory in combination with the HIMARS bloodletting in the rear lead to #2 which triggers #3
Thank you for the analysis! I think another possible scenario Ukraine is regrettably forced to cede territory (say Donbass), but as the outcome joins NATO. Or get some sort of REAL security guarantees. Might be unlikely, but not impossible. Still it will mean a huge strategic loss for Russia, on a level that could bring internal instability
Wouldnt give any agreements with Russia 24 hrs without them shelling in response.
I think never would Ukraine have any reason to cede Donbass, Russia doesn't have nearly enough manpower, material or the military budget to hold it for years. Likwise Putin wants the whole of Ukraine & Moldova. While I agree he might request a pause for Donbass I doubt he would ever accept NATO, that would mean he couldn't lie & attack which is all he knows.
I don't think that outcome would be regarded as Ukraine "winning"
Ukraine losing the Donbass and Crimea, but getting very close relationship to NATO and EU. That is an possible outcome and in some aspect it may be a victory.
Look how West Germany "won" WW2. About 15 years after the end of the war it was a much better place to live than ever before.This was due to it's firm integration into the West, which resulted in both economic grows and personal freedom and security.
The moment Ukraine joins NATO, they will be forced to give land/Donbas and Crimea to the Russian Federation [which is giving land to the United Nations].
thank you for these thoughts. I didn't consider "sudden collapse". I'm concerned about some stalemate. Since the Luhansk oblast is completely occupied, I'm wondering if or when Russia plays the "referendum" card (held at gun point of course), declares the territories part of the RF, claims "success" and any attack an attack on Russia - hence a casus belli. It allowed Putin to "legitimately" go for war economy, while playing the victim. Maybe that's the backup plan to pull right before sudden collapse.
Gunpoint my foot, those people have been begging their fellow Russian speakers to help them liberate the Donbas since way before the maidan coup!
Putin doesn't want a mobilization and war economy. If he did he could get it by just declaring war. No need for other shenanigans. Russia cannot sustain a mobilization for long and it will in fact bring it down faster if they did it. Productivity is down the drain already in there. Also arming a lot of people that don't like you is not a thing a dictator wants to do. Further that will make Belgorod and especially Sevastopol and Rostov on Don legitimate targets as the "do not attack into Russia" provision for western weapons will disappear.
Attacks are already happening in Russian-annexed Crimea (Moscow's territory as far as they're concerned), yet the Kremlin has not ramped up the rhetoric accordingly. Other attacks occurred earlier across the border in Russia proper (Belgorod area). I don't think further annexations/referendums will make all that much difference.
The problem Moscow has is that full mobilisation (rather than selective recruitment drives and use of mercenaries) will expose the more politically sensitive populations of the capital and St Petersburg to the full casualty rates of the conflict, from which they have so far been largely - and deliberately - insulated. That could lead to domestic pressure, protests and even a threat to the government. It seems unlikely they could win quickly enough by weight of numbers alone (given how the regular army has struggled) before that became a problem.
Russia's direst threat, the use of nuclear weapons, is futile, as their actual use could well end with the destruction of their own nation (and the rest of the northern hemisphere). It's pure nihilism.
@@Ulfcytel yeah sure! 😂
@@traderboi2662 yes sure russian troll. There are videos all over youtube. Russki corabl idi na h u i
looks like option 1 as of Aug 29. Maybe it will lead to option 2?
Russia may not be economically strong enough to sustain the war for much longer once Putin spends his war chest
Option 2 does not need to be a decision, like in Afghanistan, though. The Russians could also collapse involuntarily. The quality of troops declines, moral will do as well if Ukraine can continue to inflict damage.
Yep, and if any of those things start to happen, we can always count on Putin's ability to recognize the 'trends'.
Except Russia can afford to continue the war. Ukraine is constantly begging for billions every month and is losing 300 soldiers a day
"the quality of troops decline"
Just like that, a fart in a wind. Anything to proove this argument? Possibly not a reddit linked?
@@freeloader247 It is well established that Russia lost its high quality infantry, like their VDV. The men mobilized in Donbas are low quality unprofessional. Russia recruits middle aged men in Russia and throws them into battle with little training. There is good evidence for that. Also, that an information is posted on reddit does not disprove it.
Michael, that is the way I see it. Not a "decision", coming from Moscow but a loss of the ability to fight an offensive war. Sabotage in the field and the rebellion by, say, some mid-level commanders can threaten the integrity (such as it is) of the Russian Army. A pullback is the only way to avoid full-on collapse.
It might be presented as a decision, after the fact.
Arguably the economic theatre is far bigger - which will influence these points. Russia is having it's last economic roll of the dice with the European gas cutoff. All hinges on this now - Russia is banking on creating European fracturing, leading to some relief on the sanctions front. If Europe can hold firm for the winter -- the chances of option 2 & 3 happening go up considerably.
Wasn't scenario 2 (collapse) what happened to Russia in Afghanistan too?
For the last one to happen it would be necessary with a new leadership that isn’t inspired/tied to the thoughts of Aleksandr Durgin!
1 and 2 can be mixed: UA slowly pushes back orcs over many fronts so Putin saves face by spinning their retreat as a planned action as they did in the northern front earlier.
Winning is not a binary thing meaning you can have partial victory. Ukraine has probably already won the political control of it’s country but won’t necessarily regain all its territory. A complete victory to me would be regaining the 2014 lines
Nah, in the unlikely event of UA advance I am sure Putin could simply declare war and start mobilizing. Chances of that happening are maybe 3%.
@@tomk3732 I doubt that because a mobilization wouldn't do all that much, throwing a bunch of fresh conscripts into the fight is likely to just overstress Russian supply lines and confuse their command structure, not to mention so far the regime has gone to great lengths to avoid calling it a war or mobilizing in any way so I think they'd want to stick to that line.
@@tomk3732 Putin would've obviously done that already if it would've given him an advantage. There are many technical and political reasons he can't declare war & mobilize.
@@glowyboi7175 Sure he can mobilize any day - but there is a price to pay. Since Russia is clearly winning why pay a price???
@@hedgehog3180 Russian supply chain switched to war mode almost two months ago.
These would not be "fresh conscripts" these would be reservists. I.e. people that had around 1 year of military training.
These troops would be used to simply stretch Ukrainian defense over the whole border area.
Kremlin does not operate on "optics" as much as Kiev does for whom public opinion, especially international one, trumps all. Kremlin operates on what military needs to not only finish the operation (which is soon) but broader war.
It is clear that end of operation may not mean end of the actual conflict. Thus regime change in Kiev and more broad territorial changes may be needed. You simply cannot do this with currently used troops.
Thus mobilization is almost certain in near future. Hence why switch to war economy.
Remember when Kremlin pulled from Kiev area? They are doing sound military decisions not based on BS.
Both dictator putin and lukashenko are sickening. The world is better off without them.
Absolutely... Putin's regime are the 21st Century Nazis. ... Lukashenko is like Mussolini, Putin's puppy dog.
At this point I think Sudden Collapse or Regime Change can only be achieved by decimating Russian pride. Territory wise, unless Ukraine changes its conditions to accept territory losses, it is more likely that Russia fully mobilises through a casus belli of annexation of the territories rather than withdrawing from counter attack. That leaves options 2 & 3 which requires events that will pass the state filter. And the only event that could do that is a significant portion of the Black Sea fleet being sunk.
That can be arranged...
Interesting tower the end you mention time limit and sad that it feels that all are counted in years…
Just remember that the "reconquest" of the Iberian peninsula by the Christian kingdoms from the Muslim kingdoms was measured in centuries. These things can last awhile, and only the participants can determine whether it is worth continuing the fight.
In my opinion, you are just imagining scenarios that are highly unlikely to ever happen, there are no conditions on the ground for any of the scenarios you mentioned.
Totally agree, he does not anything he is talking about. He offer dreams for people of the same type.
@@ngamashaka4894 Deception is what he is doing
@@AmoxitlLand Yes and he is very late this thing could be heard a few months ago now no one with any good sens can think that. then again there is people who don't know what a a woman is and think Biden is doing great...
A sucker born every minute they say
@@ngamashaka4894 Is possible
Number 3? Unless Putin will live forever
2:50 - not sure why it should be 23rd of Feb 2022? Why can't it 2014 borders, why can't Ukraine take some of ruzzian land for leverage? Transnistria as well, perhaps combined operation with Moldova just to say screw you to ruzist?
I would start by saying that ruzzia has lost this war regardless, they already have lost it. And I think you and other annalists already pointed it out and I just wanted to remind it - war is not just about a fight and killing some people, it is political too to achieve certain goals which soft power could not. It is last resort tool, but it is still just that. ruzzia had 4 goals and they already failed to achieve all of them in all cases are much worse than before they started - NATO has enlarged, Ukrainains are more nationalists and staunchly anti-ruczist than ever (that is not to be confused with putka's claims they they are nazis, it just normal for people to hate their tormentors and have new found appreciation to their culture and nation during the fight for survival), Ukraine is more armed than ever and has larger army than ever, and Zelenskyy is now historic hero for decades, probably comparable to Churchill and alike, so regime change is less likely than ever, not only that whereas before mildly pro-ruzzian parties and leaders were acceptable, they are now outright banned as traitors and democratically impossible to elect even with some soft-meddling in elections. Even in ex-pro-ruzzian parts of Ukraine now standing with agenda positive to ruzzia would be political suicide. So ruzzia has lost - that is simple.
But what Ukraine requires to "win" is more difficult. First of all there is political pressure to get all the lands back, anyone agreeing to leave any territory to ruzzia would be seen as traitor, so sadly yes, taking all territory for Ukraine is must. What they they take it back, option 1, 2 or 3. Does not matter, but they need ALL the lands back to sell it to their electorate. Don't forget again that Ukrainians are more nationalist now than ever, so this will be very very sensitive just in principle. Now why "win" in quotes, because Ukraine has partially lost many things as well - $2 Trillion in damages (and still increasing), probably 100k dead, 200k injured, tens of thousands raped and brutalised... even if they get al their territory back it isn't exactly "win". it will be more like "we got injured but we lived" type of thing. For Ukraine to really WIN they need to punish ruzzia horribly, take large parts of land, secure huge reparations to rebuild the country, maybe even drive collapse in ruzzian regime letting it burn in civil war. Again making it painful for ruzzia won't exactly bring back people from dead, but it will be more widely acceptable as victory. Let's compare that to WW2. Would it be enough for soviets just to go back to their borders before 1939 to declare victory against nazis? NO they had to drive all the way to Berlin, because else they could have stopped fighting in late 1943 as soon as nazis were out of soviet territory proper. Ok - but that isn't realistic to drive to Moscow and personally decapitate putka...
So what would I see as Ukraine's win? Regain all the territory +/- couple of kilometres, certainly Crimea (just to be clear). With help of international community (and importantly this is only possible with international community) secure reparations from ruzzia, meaning sanctions should not be lifted until ruzzia pays back Ukraine all the damages caused, including compensation to dead and injured, transfer of military assets etc. Bomb shit out of Transnistria, perhaps help Moldova to get rid of that cancer there. And perhaps finally bring war criminal to justice.
Realistically speaking I cannot see Ukraine "winning" it as per my conditions of "victory", but I can see them getting half-way, where they can get Crimea back, most of Donbas, get $600 billion of frozen ruzzian assets somehow transferred back to them via EU/US subsidies and being somewhere between not-losing but not actually winning, somewhat bruised but proud. It still can happen in all 3 ways described.
Because Russia would mobilize, then Ukraine is steak dinner.
@@insanetrickster Ukraine already out mobilised ruzzia, by now Ukraine has over a million people in the army. Even if ruzzia decided to mobilise, which it won't because it would be really unpopular and threaten the regime, it would take very long time to catch-up with Ukraine. For reservists I would say minimum 3 months and then we looking at about 1 million reservists and in next few month Ukraine will add another 300k to it's army. Meaning if ruzzia mobilises tomorrow, then by 2023 we have two armies of about 1.5million people, expect Ukrainian army would be more experience at the time. Likewise ruzzia already running out of relevant equipment, so I don't know what they planning to give to it's troops... Mosins for 1920's?
I guess your comment was made in response for Ukraine taking ruzzian territory. I guess you right, losing so badly may push ruzzian in full scale mobilisation, but I feel that losing so badly would collapse putka's regime, before he could even declare mobilisation.
The thing is - ruzzians like strongman leaders, they don't like putka's who mess-up invasion and when they get their asses beaten comes back for mobilisation.
He could have mobilised right away (even that would not be very popular) and that would be fine, but he can't mobilise after proving himself poor strategist and leader. If he tried mobilising when the war goes badly and ruzists pushed back into ruzzian territory, he would end-up like Czar.
Also Transnistria is part of Moldova.
I dont think Ukraine would get eany support trying to take land they dident have before 2014 this would be to shoot them selfe in the foot. If they felt they could do that with the support from their allied, they would already have shot many rockets in to Russia. But they cant play dirty and loose support, they cant loose their good will, and then the weapons. Continued sanctions after the war could help them to get reparations from Russia to rebuild. But still think it is hard to count on Russian good will.
@@simonbach3618 counting on ruzzian goodwill is like counting, mass murderer remorse, just not gonna happen.
I agree that Ukraine does not want to lose goodwill, this is the reason why they haven't moved to Belarus, which is soft target and active belligerent in war, nor have established buffer territory in the north, and they even continue to operate gas pipelines and transit ruzzian gas to countries like Hungary.
However, attacking and occupying ruzzian territory has operational and strategic value. Likewise value negotiating settlement. On top of that "good will" is highly political, if the west see the occupation of ruzzian parts as beneficial in destabilising it and making it less dangerous, then they may support it.
The rationale is there - now ruzzia has all it's land as safe zone and can retreat an manoeuvre anytime there without risk of Ukraine following and without need to keep troops for defence there. In military sense it doesn't make sense not-to attack and occupy territory in such conflict.
Not only that long term west support in not guaranteed and it may be the only Ukraine's leverage.
So in the end I partially agree with you and I appreciate why Ukraine doesn't do it yet, but it doesn't mean it would be bad or doesn't make sense.
stefan korshak will take a look thx for everything
Fantasy pure and simple.
4. Russia starts a war in another place, where it is more important for them or there arises a kind of civil war inside of Russia, so he is forced to move troops. So Russia retract troops from Ukraine.
5. There is a negotiation like the one in the Winter war against Finland. Not a real loss, but in many peoples eyes it would be considered a loss total.
Ukraine could lose
1. If they no longer get support
1.a. We lose will because of inflation, gas prices etc. (I see this as unlikely in many EU nations, but Hungary and perhaps Italy later will go this way with rising interest rates and large government debt and offer of cheap gas and populist politicians.)
1.b. We lack material that is easy to give away. (in some countries, but we can manufacture new javalins etc.)
1.c. Ukraine acts in a way we can't support (unlikely now)
2. If Ukraine lack soldiers or give up
2.a. Lack of soldiers - many Ukrainians want to fight for their country still and there are many men, but not endless.
2.b. Lack of moral - Zelenskyj dies, defence minister, generals die etc. Bad strategies. (can goes both ways, can also make ukranians angry, but if they lack leadership and guidance is could make them put down weapons)
2.c. Nuclear weapons being used. Putin pushes the big red button and Ukraine and allies decides to give up land and not double down. (there is not a good use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, so a use of it to gain an agreement is unlikely. but not impossible. Perhaps outside of Kyiv.)
2 c. would end Ruzia, since there would be retaliation. It depends on how suicidal the orcs are.
@@nian60 Ukraine does no longer have nuclear weapons, so it would have to be UK or US to use them against Russia. It could happen of course. It suddenly would move the war into a whole other category and no longer special military operation for sure....
@@henrik8812 Yes, it would be some other nation than Ukraine. Which would happen.
@@nian60 Why are you so sure of that? It does not happen in all war games.
@@nian60 What kind of retaliation are you thinking of? Because sure there would be a massive military retaliation
I'm no expert but what if Ukraine manages to reach the Crimea border and suddenly threatens to liberate Crimea. Imagine Putin telling his audience, that they conquered a village in Donbass, but at the same time lost Crimea. I believe when the first Ukrainian soldier steps foot on Crimea, Putin will start to negotiate and withdraw his troops.
Crimea would be more difficult to retake than Donbas though
@@algot34 Yeah. Even 80 years ago the Germans had a much easier time with Donbas than Sevastopol.
@@algot34 It might be enough to threaten Crimea. If some villages in Crimea are liberated, Russia can't try to freeze the conflict and hope that the west loses interest.
Ukraine can never forcibly retake Crimea. If there is a danger that Crimea would be lost to Ukraine, Putin would 100% go nuclear. Russia annexed it and sees it as it's own territory. It's to important both strategically and for Putins image to ever be lost.
@@carlosn894 That probably isn't true. If the frontline was looking like the 1941 frontline then Russia might go nuclear, but we do need to remember that going nuclear does pretty well guarantee that Russia more or less ceases to exist. I don't think Crimea crosses the threshold for that.
If you're looking for the interview on Putin that Anders mentioned, here is the link: th-cam.com/video/0Y5T8S9Er28/w-d-xo.html
Very well said, sir.
It seems clear that this debacle will cost him his job, if not his life.
We need only to vigorously support the courageous Ukrainian people, by whatever needs they require, to send this horrible example of humanity into the garbage can of history.
Russia won the war already like two months ago. Ukraine "win" is simply re-defining loss as win. Such as, sure we lost half the country, but we got to keep the other half!
Russia win war wait and see
If that were the case, why keep fighting and pushing the front? Clearly, Russia's definition of 'win' is not the same as yours.
🐑👹🤖
The Russians have tremendous experience in the battlefield, and coupled with their capabilities, the Russians will achieve their objectives. We Would have to see what’s will actually be left of the Ukraine statehood.
Looks like door number 1 Anders (with the big counter offensive)
Just as the Taliban's situation fighting the US. The Russians took the clocks in Ukraine. But the Ukrainians still have the time.
This is nonsense, because
a) The Ukrainian army can't overwhelm the Russian one. One of the main problem is that their army is weaker, you can't change that.
b) There is no point at which Putin would look on a sheet and say "Wow, now we've lost the 30.000th soldier, that enough, retreat". Russia isn't like the US where every soldier killed is a headline in the local news. The state&media don't care about the individual soldier. On top of it, the "retreat" in Afghanistan didn't happen like you suggested it. It was simply one of Trump's stunts, one of his campaign promises was to end the wars, after 2015 the Nato forces weren't really doing anything else but support the afghan military anyway. There was no collapse. There also wasn't any emotional attachment to the cause.
c) So the next is "maybe Putin drops dead and we get a good guy instead". Well, maybe I win the lottery. Maybe his succesor is even worse?
Come on, this is nonsense. Ukraine can't and won't win, they should just stop and accept that might _still_ makes right.
Russia spent 10 years to "win" in Chechnya (install a Chechnya leader) which has 1 million people. Ukraine has 16 million people...
Sorry, Ukraine has 40 million people.
The Russian military isnt big enough to win anything.
This is just Russian billionaires killing poor Russians for gas money.
1. Ain't going to happen
2. Ain't going to happen
3. Not likely to happen but if it does, who do you think will replace Putin?
Russia told us its objectives on Jan 24th, have you forgotten them already?
Putin currently enjoys 80%+ support in Russia. He is not a deranged megalomaniac forcing Russia to fight.
There are Russian leaders (e.g. Medvedev) who are more hawkish than Putin.
Respectfully, I advise you diversify your sources if you want to to better understand this conflict.
It sure looks like option 1 is happening right now.
@@mqb3gofjzkko7nzx38 Ukraine seems to be pushing Russia back near Kharkiv.
Let's see how this offensive develops.
0:38 Why there is audio clip at least 2 times louder than your talk?
Do you think it’s too loud. I am already reducing the music by 10 dB but maybe I should try 15?
1: In dreams... 2: WIth a magic lamp, genius included... 3: It can't...
More likely that Ukraine:
1) Finds a genie in a lamp
2) Invents a time machine
3) Opens a portal to the underworld
More or less. I mean its like saying - what if Hitler turned things around in 1944????
Eh, by Russia's own standard, they are far from winning -- regime change ftw. They need to commit many more troops or to much more violent suppression/destruction to accomplish that goal.
So then what? Eventually they break through or they get stuck. If they get stuck, they *must* commit more resources. The more they commit, the weaker Putin's position.
At some point does it hit Putin, "I accept these territorial gains, declare victory using my state controlled media and try and demand no-NATO concession from Ukraine OR do I commit even more resources?"
So far the answer has been neither -- he accepted the suggestion from his leader to play the shell game of reallocating his resources -- if Ukraine continues to receive support, then that won't last forever.
If Putin had thought he could justify a full-scale war (instead of this limited Special Action Blahblahblah) he would have done it, right? He gave a long explanation of why Ukraine should belong to Mother Russia. He believes in his heart, it belongs to him.
Can he win the war? Sure, but can he win the war and keep control of Russia? I'm unconvinced.
You mean, more likely that fascist Orcland does those things. Except in that case, 3 would be "going home".
@@nian60 You've mastered word salad.
@@x--. Clearly it has not occurred to you that the current pace doesn't bother Putin in the least.
Record high gas prices for as long as the conflict continues means he has everything he needs to keep manufacturing ammunition.
Only Cope addicts think that a slow walk across Ukraine hurts Russia more than UK (leader ousted), Italy (leader ousted), France (no confidence votes inching closer to ousting each go) or the US (wildly unpopular).
Russia not going fast enough for your standards is irrelevant.
The guy is ridiculous.
1. Magic.
2. A clone army.
3. Hiring Chuck Norris.
Also possible> first one, second two, third three scenario.
Its april 2023 here, and the war still goes on..
Unfortunately I feel it’s #1, unless #3 happens… but Puttin no only constructed an economic iron curtain but also a political power internal iron curtain. Does he not have a direct army under is direct control?
Your scenarios two and three happen simultaneously. If there is a scenario two collapse Putin also loses power and is executed, so he will never choose this. It may be forced on him through civil unrest and loss of support by other powerful people in Russia, which is scenario three. Both of these are made possible by Ukraine causing huge losses in the Russian army, which is scenario one. So even though an end benefiting Ukraine may occur in different ways, Ukraine only has one choice, not three, in prosecuting the war.
Another circumstance that would help Ukraine is if Russia's perceived weakness emboldened separatist elements in client states such that they gain power, threatening Russia's entire sphere of influence with disintegration. This would increase the pressure behind all your scenarios. A trouble maker might just assist these elements to precipitate such action, though this is likely beyond Ukraine's ability.
When talking about how Ukraine can get back the territories, we have a great precedent. How russians fled the Kiev oblast. It's basically the same. Mke them cornered and they won't have a coice but to leave. What I see rn in Kherson -- that's exactly the plan
Wars are won when nations lose will to continue fighting. It is about determination. On 24th Feb I saw interviews of ordinary men driving their families to the polish border and turn around and get back to fight. I was sure on the second day that even if Russia takeover entire Ukraine. They will still withdraw defeated i.e. like Afghanistan.
The weak point for Russia is not in Moscow but in the desire of the common soldiers to fight. I expect mass surrenders in Kherson or/and mass mutiny. This will be sudden collapse.
What worries me is Putin getting overthrown by hardliners before it is clear to all that they lose. I fear these are the people that are in pole position to take over now. These people will use Tactical Nuclear weapon to subdue Ukrainians and Western support. What we do in this case?
According to Lavrov, Russia goal is now a regime change in Ukraine, so Russia already lost.
This guy doesn't even know Doha Peace Treaty. 😆
Hej Anders : 1like for this 1
Still, the main problem for Russia regards Ukraine is : Bordering another NATO country, (and I`m aware of the natural resources in Donbas/Easter Ukraine) so as long its Ukraine`s wish to join Nato, Russia will not stop easily/soon.
Regards your 3 options - this:
Option 1) - would bleed out Ukraine, hence offence is more costly in personel than defence.
But I dont see Option 1 as the Strategic goal right now.
Option 2) - This will work (Kind of land for lot`s of Russian life`s), and is "cheaper in personelcost for Ukraine, at the same time giving Ukraine time to enlage/structure/improve there military capability.
To me thats the only Strategic obtions Ukraine have - at least for now.
***Just make this "Special military operation", Russia`s costlieste "military adventure" in modern time***
Option 3) - I dont see this option "just round the corner" - but it will come in play, as Russian casuaties continui to raise/grow.
Another great analysis - Thnx Anders, and see U in the nxt 1
You're aware Russian Federation (Kaliningrad Oblast) is boardering NATO countries , aren't you?
Soon the boarder will be twice longer with Finland and Sweden (what Putin commented recently as no problem, we'll see...)
_"Still, the main problem for Russia regards Ukraine is: Bordering another NATO country,_"
If this was a goal then invading Ukraine was highly unproductive because it has inspired Finland and Sweden to join NATO. This is already a lost cause and it would be a very bad reason/excuse for continuing the war.
Is it not completely obvious that if NATO as-is wanted to invade Russia then it would be able to quickly win a conventional conflict? The only practical difference of more Russian neighbors joining NATO is it impedes Russia's imperialistic ambitions.
Wars are caused by disagreements about reality. The West erred greatly by caving in to Putin and letting him get away with aggression in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, and Syria. This caused him to think Russia is more powerful than it actually is. The war in Ukraine is ultimately about Russia figuring out that (aside from the nuclear arsenal) it's not the world power it thinks it is.
@@BitJam What some of the "realists" claim is that having Nato at Ukraine's borders is scarier than the current Estonian, Latvian, Norwegian (and Finnish) borders because it is apparently so flat that tanks easily can drive all the way to Moscow. But the idea that Nato is going to invade Russia is just dumb. Russians would fight tooth and nail just like the Ukrainians are now, and would be even more pointless for Nato to do than Russia's current invasion.
@@BitJam Hi friend, thnx for Ur reply, following is my 3 very short answer`s to your comments:
1.sec: - Russia (and Belarus) need a bufferzone in Ukraine, and the natural resource`s.
2.sec: - A Nato invasion on Russia or Belarus, would in my opinion trigger a Nuclear War.
3.sec: - I see that you have notice`d Russia`s nuclear arsenal - that`s good.
When looking at your options against an enemy, - - always use he`s glasses - See U 👍
@@kvikende : totally agree, 👍
Two most important questions are: (i) can Ukraine regain the lost territory; (ii) can Russia gain new territory? With regard to (i), so far there hasn't been a significant counter offensive. With regard to (ii), the Russians are relatively slowly gaining new territory. Let's not forget that gaining a new territory for Russia means big losses, but it also means big losses for Ukraine as well. To sum up, I would definitely bet on Russia. You just can't ignore the fact that the Ukrainans have lost a big part of their territory and it's not going to end.
The Ukrainians can sustain casualties, because they have mobilized and have the manpower. It's a patriotic war for their survival for them.
For the Russians it is a "special military operation", means the amount of men they can scrape together is limited, and that means they cannot sustain these casualties for long.
Ukraine's defensive priorities are next:
1. Liberation of South: Kherson and Zaporizhzhya oblasts.
2. Demilitarization / liberation of Crimea and Black Sea. (after that war can possibly be frozen)
3. Liberation of East. (no point of conducting offensive on the East unless South is not secured) missile strikes for black see are mortar.
So basically they need snookers?
A win or loss is based on the specific definition of each, that each side decides. They are not necessarily the same/reciprocal. For example, Satan will be defeated in the end and he surely must know that, but his definition of success is how many souls he can subvert.
I want to know how likely it is for some part of the Russian Federation to decide now is the time to for their independence.
Pretty sure that would end the war quickly
Where are you thinking?
Its either a Georgia war scenario. Soviets Afghan or Vietnam war scenario.
Dream on mate...
I think that there's a difference between US in Afghanistan and Russia in Ukraine. American (or any democratic) government must respect public opinion to some degree. In Russia people have to respect the government. I'm very skeptical about opinions like that Russia will disintegrate because it's the police state and even if can say that vast areas of Russia are something like colonies, these colonies are very sparsely populated.
And many Russians are basically considering everything which once belonged to eastern bloc as Russian/Soviet territories that are temporarily lost. And there's a narative that for example Czech Republic is just a German colony (because majority of industry is owned by Germans since 90s and it's true that sometimes all profit is transfered abroad in form of licence fees etc), but people don't remember that we were Soviet republic which wasn't _formally_ part of Soviet union.
There are no winners in a war beween brothers of the same blood.