The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[rsemmes]

It is more effective to increase pressure on Ukraine.

Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy tells Sky News he's ready to meet Putin for peace talks but won't give up territory

The Ukrainian president urged the administration in Washington to tighten sanctions against the families of Russia's leadership and to provide Ukraine with more advanced weapons, arguing that only increased pressure would force Moscow to take negotiations seriously.

news.sky.com

Zelenski is not planning a forever war that he cannot win, but all he can do is "urge".
"US has the power to end the war". Or Russia, but not Ukraine.
"Only increased pressure would force Moscow to take negotiations seriously". Pressure he cannot apply and he is not taking negotiations (from the real situation of Ukraine) seriously.
"First of all how to get back all of the land for today, it's very difficult" Meaning impossible.
"It's our territory (Sloviansk and Kramatorsk) and it sounds unbelievably strange why we have to withdraw from our land?" Not that strange if the other option is a forever war he has no means to fight.
What Zelenski is saying (or not saying) is another reason to disagree with Kofman.

 

[Hoover]

It is more effective to increase pressure on Ukraine.

That is disgusting.
Instead of taking pressure on the attacked country you should take pressure on the aggressor. But no, Russia has to win in your eyes.

Pressure he cannot apply and he is not taking negotiations (from the real situation of Ukraine) seriously.

Of course can the USA takle pressure on Russia. Why not, in your opinion USA can take pressure on Ukraine. And your point, that the Ukraine is not taking negotiations is a lie. A simple, Russian propaganda lie. The Ukraine is the one who changed the position. Russia is not. So the USA schould tkae more pressure on Russia to force them into real and serious negotiations to stop the war Russia has started.

 

[personaldesas]

- Russia advances incrementally but at high cost.
A high cost compare to Ukrainian cost? What cost is that exactly, our biased estimates? When we provide the money and the weapons, how unbiased are our estimates?
- Offensive operations are costly and inefficient.
"Costly" is an interestimg term, what military operations are not "costly"? "Inefficient" is even more interesting, is defending fixed positions (so, offering a fixed target to the enemy "efficient"? Only movement brings victory. You are not going to achieve results without offensive operations, you certainly have to reach "superiority" (fire, drones, EW, surprise) to achieve cost/effective results. Could an Ukraine without electricity or a front line without troops be considered "results"? Is he expecting to win a war with one battle?
- Recruitment rates are increasingly close to unrecoverable losses... current offensive intensity may become harder.
According to our estimates. Defending may become harder and offensives easier just as well: Even less troops in the front line and no electricity to build drones.
- Front line not collapsing.
The front line never collapses... Until it does.
- Small infantry assault groups and infiltration tactics.
So, no one is trying major breakthroughs. So, they don't fail. Anyone is trying to deploy such a superiority in resources to achieve that breakthrough?
- Drone kill zone (~20 km each side of front) often decides initiative.
The initiative is Russian. Or, until (if) one side achieves drone supremacy.
- Russia still pursues ambitious political goals despite limited military progress./Ukrainian public is tired but not willing to accept unfavorable terms.
Very subtle there. So, Russia is winning (progress) and it keeps it maximalist position; well, there are no real negotiations after all. There has been no collapse, that means that they are willing? How much "public" is included in the Ukrainian negotiating team? Considering its situation, are Ukrainian goals ambitious, to say the least?
- No obvious game-changing weapon or technology exists.
I still disagree. Nothing has been deployed in such an overwhelming number as to change the game. It still may fail, it may prove ineffective, but it has not being tried yet; I haven't seen any actual report of it anyway.
- Time may increasingly work against Russia.
I completely disagree with that. Cannot Russia implement more economic sacrifices? Russia is not sending conscripts (Algeria/Vietnam) to fight in Ukraine. Ukraine is killing Russian children with NATO missiles, that sells pretty good as propaganda; increasing the hate so, increasing the "willingness". The Ukrainian front may collapse, Ukraine's home front is getting worse and Ukraine does not depend on itself for this war; we are scratching the bottom of the barrel for SAM, are we not.

It seems that Russia is infiltrating Ternuvate again.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1V8NzjQkzMOhpuLhkktbiKgodOQ27X6IV&ll=47.82493022089275%2C36.152576716246706&z=14

Congratulations Beltrami2005, you were able to find one picture of this year (or not, because there is no link). Your mum will be so proud.
Keep the good work.

Not sure how others here see it (curious what @Feanor thinks), but personally I find Michael Kofman’s analysis much more plausible than yours, to be honest.

 

[rsemmes]

That is disgusting.
Instead of taking pressure on the attacked country you should take pressure on the aggressor. But no, Russia has to win in your eyes.


Of course can the USA takle pressure on Russia. Why not, in your opinion USA can take pressure on Ukraine. And your point, that the Ukraine is not taking negotiations is a lie. A simple, Russian propaganda lie. The Ukraine is the one who changed the position. Russia is not. So the USA schould tkae more pressure on Russia to force them into real and serious negotiations to stop the war Russia has started.

I didn't say it is not disgusting, I said effective. I didn't say has to either.
"From the real situation of Ukraine". What lie, what situation? Ukraine does not have the money (-40% budget just starting the year) to fight this war and has 2.000.000 willing public/deserters to not fight the war.
Russia, with the upper hand, is increasing its bet. It has been posted, more than once, that Russia has been consistent in its positions.

 

[rsemmes]

Not sure how others here see it (curious what @Feanor thinks), but personally I find Michael Kofman’s analysis much more plausible than yours, to be honest.

I don't expect 20 people to have the same opinion, I do expect 2 people and 3 opinions. What I don't take is estimates as facts.

 

[Feanor]

Not sure how others here see it (curious what @Feanor thinks), but personally I find Michael Kofman’s analysis much more plausible than yours, to be honest.

Sure, let me provide some thoughts on the summary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/opinion/russia-ukraine-drone-war.html

Summary – “Time Is Not on Russia’s Side” (NYT / Michael Kofman interview)

Overall state of the war:
- The war remains largely positional and attritional after four years.
- Front lines move slowly; no major breakthroughs.
- Drones increasingly shape the battlefield.
- Russia advances incrementally but at high cost.
- Ukraine remains resilient despite heavy strain.

Overall I would agree with all of this, with one other major point - all the main trend lines for Ukraine are negative. Recruiting is struggling, aid is shrinking, total force strength seems to be shrinking, though some sources claim it's stagnating, and the pace of Russian advances has increased year over year from '23 to '25 and there's every reason to think '26 will be faster than 25, even if not drastically so.

Casualty estimates cited:

- Russia: ~1.1–1.4 million total casualties, including ~230k–430k dead (Economist estimate).
- Ukraine: ~600k total casualties, including ~100k–140k dead (CSIS estimate).
- Ukrainian losses are lower in absolute numbers but higher relative to population.

Not implausible but I'm always suspicious when you use one source for one side and another source for the other, with issues for the underlying methodology. It might be an apples and oranges comparison. I think the casualties are closer together than this. I suspect it's under 2:1. I even think there's a chance Ukraine has taken greater casualties, though it's likelier in my opinion that Russia has. Unfortunately there's just too much uncertainty. I'm also curious about the methodology. The obituary counts method yielded an under 2:1 disparity, same with the cemetery method.

Russia’s situation (according to Kofman):

- Offensive operations are costly and inefficient.
- Gains are slow and limited.
- Recruitment rates are increasingly close to unrecoverable losses.
- Economic pressure is growing (low oil prices, deficits, export pressure).
- Russia can continue fighting but sustaining current offensive intensity may become harder.

I would add that the cost of rebuilding occupied areas is going to get heavier for Russia. But there's also the potential for GDP and tax base growth as these areas develop. It's a double-sided situation, if Russia manages it well it could be a medium term net positive. But it could also turn into a drain on resources.

Ukraine’s situation:

- Defensive posture easier to sustain.
- Effective use of drones.
- Front line not collapsing.
- Continued Western support.
- Manpower shortages and fatigue.
- AWOL/desertion issues.
- Limited reserves.
- Heavy dependence on external aid.

I think this misses the continuing demographic crisis caused by a mass exodus of population. And with the continuing Russian attacks on energy infrastructure, next winter could get really ugly. He apparently talked about recruiting challenges for Russia but appears to be ignoring them for Ukraine.

How the war is being fought now:

- Small infantry assault groups and infiltration tactics.
- Heavy drone usage guiding movement and targeting.
- “Drone kill zone” (~20 km each side of front) often decides initiative.
- Increasing casualties among support/logistics units rather than frontline infantry.

I agree with most of it. That last point has a lot to do with how Russia has been operating. They try to push their positions within drone range of an MSR and the isolate a portion of the battlefield. Right now they're doing it around Krasniy Liman, Konstantinovka, Biletskoe, and the Ukrainian left-shore Oskol river area near Kupyansk. They're working towards doing it to the Orekhov area on the Zaporozhye front. I think Ukraine needs to take a page from Russia's book here. Also a big factor is the two sides hunting each other's drone operators. From what I've read and observed (and please take this with a grain of salt it's just my opinion based on limited data) it seems Russia is far more thorough and systematic in targeting drone operators from the other side to shut down drone operations.

Political / strategic points:

- Russia still pursues ambitious political goals despite limited military progress.
- Putin appears to believe Russia can outlast Western support.
- Russian system has adapted economically and politically to long war.
- Ukrainian public is tired but not willing to accept unfavorable terms.

All true for the most part. That last part, I think Ukraine's public is more willing to accept unfavorable terms now than they were in '22. In fact I think some time in the next 12 months public opinion will cross the line where most Ukrainians will be willing to let Russia take the Donbas (and choke on it) if it means the war can end. I also think Ukraine's political leadership does not want a negotiated end to the war because they understand that any negotiation conducted under present realities will not go well for them. They lack leverage, and will almost certainly have to give up territory. They seem to be hoping that if this war goes on long enough, the collective west will step in more directly, or that Russia will simply somehow run out of steam first. I think this is a dangerous gamble at best, and a road to nowhere at worst.

Main conclusion:

- Russia is not close to decisive victory.
- Ukraine is strained but stable.
- No obvious “game-changing” weapon or technology exists.
- If 2026 resembles 2025, time may increasingly work against Russia.

Ukraine is strained, but stable, but trending downward in multiple areas of which territorial control is arguably the less significant one. Ukraine's continuing loss of territory is more a secondary indication of how Ukraine's doing rather than the mechanism by which Ukraine will win or lose the war. People have been talking about time working against Russia every year of this war, but objectively this doesn't appear to be true. Russia's worst performance overall was in '22, and Russia has steadily improved since then. The Russian military is a more dangerous adversary now than before, Russia's arsenals are expanded and many Russian weapon systems have had major and important improvements made. I think that 2026 will resemble 2025, but with slightly faster Russian gains, and I think time will work increasingly against Ukraine. I also think the key factor is Ukraine's society tiring of the war to the point where the willingness to continue fighting just disappears. I think Ukraine needs to make a deal of some sort before that point is reached, and I think Russia knows this. It's why they're refusing any ceasefires or attempts to ease the pressure. They know their only real leverage is their continuing ability to do damage to Ukraine and take more ground.

 

[Feanor]

That is disgusting.
Instead of taking pressure on the attacked country you should take pressure on the aggressor. But no, Russia has to win in your eyes.

Well what exactly do you want? An end to the war relatively quickly or fair outcome to the war even if it takes 4 more years and another few hundred thousand dead, with a few million as refugees? If you want to end the war relatively quickly, getting Ukraine to take the Anchorage deal seems to be the best way forward. If you want a fair outcome, the collective west needs to kick defense spending into high gear and start investing into real support for Ukraine instead of handing them leftovers, and the occasional homeopathic dose of shiny new stuff for battlefield testing.

Of course can the USA takle pressure on Russia. Why not, in your opinion USA can take pressure on Ukraine. And your point, that the Ukraine is not taking negotiations is a lie. A simple, Russian propaganda lie. The Ukraine is the one who changed the position. Russia is not. So the USA schould tkae more pressure on Russia to force them into real and serious negotiations to stop the war Russia has started.

It's hard to pressure Russia more when they're already buried under piles of sanctions and further pressure could require compromising things like freedom of navigation in international waters. And pressuring Russia can come with unpleasant side-effects. Ukraine on the other hand is nearly completely dependent on the collective west for survival. So it's much easier to pressure them. But of course it's not impossible to pressure Russia more. The question is, what would be the outcome? I think the question is above is key, what outcome are we aiming for?

 

[personaldesas]

I don't expect 20 people to have the same opinion, I do expect 2 people and 3 opinions. What I don't take is estimates as facts.

Fair enough

 

[personaldesas]

Well what exactly do you want? An end to the war relatively quickly or fair outcome to the war even if it takes 4 more years and another few hundred thousand dead, with a few million as refugees? If you want to end the war relatively quickly, getting Ukraine to take the Anchorage deal seems to be the best way forward. If you want a fair outcome, the collective west needs to kick defense spending into high gear and start investing into real support for Ukraine instead of handing them leftovers, and the occasional homeopathic dose of shiny new stuff for battlefield testing.

I think that sums up the situation quite well.

And while talking about disgusting, what I find truly disturbing is the gap between words and actions. There’s endless talk about “Ukraine must win,” plenty of moral grandstanding, but when it comes to actually providing what would be needed to make that happen, the commitment is far less impressive. That disconnect feels deeply disingenuous.

We could be in a very different place today if the West, especially countries like Germany, had dropped the “we’ll send helmets” nonsense early on and delivered the necessary equipment decisively and at scale, instead of piecemeal shipments of old gear. A day late and a dollar short.

 

[Feanor]

I think that sums up the situation quite well.

And while talking about disgusting, what I find truly disturbing is the gap between words and actions. There’s endless talk about “Ukraine must win,” plenty of moral grandstanding, but when it comes to actually providing what would be needed to make that happen, the commitment is far less impressive. That disconnect feels deeply disingenuous.

We could be in a very different place today if the West, especially countries like Germany, had dropped the “we’ll send helmets” nonsense early on and delivered the necessary equipment decisively and at scale, instead of piecemeal shipments of old gear. A day late and a dollar short.

It's why it's entirely plausible that Putin is correct when he thinks that Western will for tangible support will run out before Russian runs out of steam. That gap between words and actions, by the way, has always been there. It's one of the reasons I think it was a mistake for Russia to get tangled up in the Donbas back in '14. I don't think Ukraine had any real chance of joining NATO or the EU back then, no matter how much Turchinov and Yatsenyuk grandstand about it. I'm not convinced that Ukraine will join the EU once this war ends. They might, but it's far from a done deal. And Ukraine has it's own pile of problems to deal with. It's entirely plausible that after some sort of uncomfortable compromise peace, Ukraine ends up losing the peace and comes out even poorer than Russia in the medium term, with worse economic prospects by far.

 

[Hoover]

I don't think Ukraine had any real chance of joining NATO or the EU back then, no matter how much Turchinov and Yatsenyuk grandstand about it. I'm not convinced that Ukraine will join the EU once this war ends

NATO is out of reach because you will have some members who will oppose. So no way for Ukraine becoming a member.
Same for the EU.

 

[rsemmes]

BBC as the main organ of Russian propaganda:

“When Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered up to 200,000 soldiers into Ukraine on 24 February 2022, his aim was to sweep into the capital, Kyiv, in days, overthrow its pro-Western government and return Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence.”

Why did Putin’s Russia invade Ukraine and how could the war end?

Russia hoped to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Western government, but Moscow's war has dragged on for more than four years.

www.bbc.co.uk

What happened to conquer all of Ukraine and erase the country?
...
“Those comments have led many to believe that the goal of the invasion was in effect to erase the state of Ukraine.”
Many? In the educated west, how are we going to believe all those fantasies? Those wild propaganda statements by Russian politicians? All that “Putin's 'nonsense' history”?

But, at the same time:
"Russia and Ukraine exchange more than 1,000 soldiers' bodies"

Russia says it has handed over 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers' bodies

Russia's announcement comes as Ukraine's top negotiator met US peace envoys in Geneva.

www.bbc.co.uk

Then you read in the article:
“Russia says it has handed over the remains of 1,000 soldiers to Ukraine and has received the bodies of 35 Russian soldiers in return.”
A bit misleading the headlines, maybe? Is that Russian propaganda?
Of course, the BBC is kind enough to provide a weekly estimate of Russian casualties since the beginning of the war. For those 35 corpses?
Where is the estimate for the other 1.000 corpses?

Russia blew up the Nordstream and everything we told afterwards is completely true because we (western media and politicians) estimate that it is true.
It makes me wonder if we are telling dumb stories (Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story, unless you can't think of anything better) for dumb people... Or trying to sell a dead horse.

Then, Hoover, what is Zelenski not negotiating for? To keep the 20% of Ukraine that he has already lost?

 

[Feanor]

A great if somewhat dated discussion of the F-16 and it's potential in Ukrainian service. It's interesting to see how things have played out too and compare to his predictions.

 

[vikingatespam]

RU is now digging into T-72A stockpiles. There isnt much left for usable stored tanks. This article is based upon Jompy99's analyses.

Russia Just Started Tapping the T-72 Tank Stockpile It Was Saving for Last, OSINT Finds

OSINT: Russia activates stored T-72 Ural and T-72A tanks for overhaul, signaling deeper reserve use as losses mount in its war on Ukraine.

united24media.com

"For the US, the implication is strategic: Russia’s tank pipeline may be degrading, but it is not collapsing—and the shift to last-reserve hulls is less a sign of irrelevance than a sign Moscow is willing to spend down long-held stockpiles to keep the war machine moving."

 

[vikingatespam]

“Those comments have led many to believe that the goal of the invasion was in effect to erase the state of Ukraine.”
Many? In the educated west, how are we going to believe all those fantasies? Those wild propaganda statements by Russian politicians? All that “Putin's 'nonsense' history”?

This is all familiar territory. Russias own axes of advance on day 1 indicate what the plan was. Total control. Putins own statements on the validity of the UKR state tell us what we need to know.

Stop pretending like we havnt already addressed this.

 

[Beltrami2005]

The thing regarding support is, that this war costs Russia at its very foundation. It devaststes its population, military equipment ect. While for the EU, for us ..its a side distraction. The sheer difference in economic power and human capital is so enormous, that Russia has ceased it be a threat for a united Europe, which is a good thing. And is even outlined in the new us defense strategy. Russia isnt a serious threat for Europe.

Its also the reason why Putins attempt to negotiate with USA alone utterly failed. Ukraine can be hold alive by Europe alone and USA has been proven too weak to force a peace.

I have no issue with keeping support for Ukraine high. We all know Russia always collapsed after the loss of mayor wars. Its in our best interest to walk towards that goal and Ukraine is the best lever for that.

 

[personaldesas]

I don't think Ukraine had any real chance of joining NATO or the EU back then, no matter how much Turchinov and Yatsenyuk grandstand about it.

Agreed.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that even Russia genuinely saw that as a realistic outcome. So I’m not entirely convinced it was their sole, or even primary, motivation.

 

[personaldesas]

The thing regarding support is, that this war costs Russia at its very foundation. It devaststes its population, military equipment ect. While for the EU, for us ..its a side distraction. The sheer difference in economic power and human capital is so enormous, that Russia has ceased it be a threat for a united Europe, which is a good thing. And is even outlined in the new us defense strategy. Russia isnt a serious threat for Europe.

If that is true, then why hasnt the EU shut that whole thing down right away, e.g. by properly arming Ukraine?

 

[KipPotapych]

Since the discussion went another circle and turned to this again (motivations and causes, etc). I happened to have started reading the last Woodward’s book, War, today, got to page 45 or somewhere there so far. Here are a few things.

These two (consecutive) pages talk about the idea of Biden meeting Putin, in early spring of 2021, after Russia started building up their forces on the border with Ukraine:

Note that setting up the meeting achieved exactly the result they hoped for (though I am not necessarily suggesting cause and effect here):

"If we make the offer to meet for June," two months away, Biden said, "it gives Putin some incentive to say hey, what have the Americans got? You know? That might lead Putin to reduce pressure on Ukraine's border and deter the likelihood of a potential military operation in the spring.”

Another set of consecutive pages (the first is just so that there are no questions regarding the beginning of the second). Prior to meeting Putin, Biden (reasonably) assembled a group of Russia experts to get a better sense of Putin. While Fiona Hill is singled out and others are not, there are surely better people to talk to than Mrs. Hill, but I assume the group was diverse. (note Trump’s expert meeting described below as well, laughing).

So the consensus among the experts seems to have been:

The Russian leader was looking for a big, strategic negotiation about Ukraine and the future of European security.

Someone here has been saying that for a long time, I should note. The next paragraph, in dissonance with the previous one, says:

But Biden told the group he wasn't about to let Russia just swallow up an independent country.

Strategic negotiations hardly imply “swallowing up an independent country”, of course.

Another couple of pages, after the meeting between Biden and Putin took place in Geneva:

In my opinion, there is a clear illustration of Putin willing to work - read negotiate - with the US at this point. Another page prior notes that main agenda of the meeting was cybersecurity and they talked about Afghanistan as well; Ukraine, I quote (I do not want to insert another whole page here in order to stick with the copyright laws (local and the US), to have some contingency as to what happens next), “was barely a footnote in the conversation. Later, some would wonder if the failure to focus on it was a colossal mistake.” And “like dozens before: US talking points versus Russian talking points”. However, it is clear from Biden’s press conference talk that Putin had expressed the very concerns Russia (or he) has:

"I think the last thing he wants now is a Cold War," Biden said of Putin. "He still, I believe, is concerned about being quote, 'encir-cled? He is still concerned that we, in fact, are looking to take him down, et cetera. He still has those concerns, but I don't think they are the driving force as to the kind of relationship he's looking for with the United States."

In my opinion, the last sentence indicates complete and clear misunderstanding of the situation on Biden’s part. To note, Biden’s presser was after Putin’s by design.

So Russia had withdrawn (most of) the troops, while leaving the equipment intact, the Americans are cautiously happy with the progress. About a month later, Putin dropped his essay on the subject of Ukraine and Russia and history and whatever (some read it, others heard of it).

It should be noted, nowhere did it say in that essay (or before) that Ukraine should be part of Russia. The essay itself, for those interested, can be found here: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/tt382m/pdf

This is it for now, but to be continued (probably).

 

[Beltrami2005]

If that is true, then why hasnt the EU shut that whole thing down right away, e.g. by properly arming Ukraine?

Because a death by 1000 cuts is cheaper than going all in and risk Russia to go kaboom and damage us. Its like boiling a frog.

If you look 2022 if we went full in then, Russia would have caused a big problem. Now? Its bleeding out, which is far less messy.

The best outcome would be if Russia just silently croaks out.