|
|
|
|
|
|
by klibertp
673 days ago
|
|
|
> Plus, give it six months more [...] mostly winning the war I'd agree even two weeks ago, but then Kursk happened. So far, Russia's response to that has been weak. While it will be hard for Ukraine to use that as a foothold to advance deeper into Russia due to geography (mountains and rivers, I'm told), it will also be challenging for Russia to take back the territory. It's also not a big enough threat to "endanger the existence of the Russian state", so they probably won't be using tactical nukes there. With that, "winning" is going to be very hard - it looks much more like a tie now. What are your thoughts on that? |
|
|
Plus the situation regarding troops on the ground didn’t change. Ukraine didn’t rotate enough and is reluctant to conscript more. Soldiers are tired and morale is low.
Kursk is there to try to extend the front and have Russia pull troops out of the north. It’s mostly guerilla warfare on a weakly protected area. They don’t have the man power nor the logistic means required to prevent Russia from retaking the region but doing so means that Russia will stop pushing further into Ukraine for some time. It was sorely needed but it’s a stopgap measure not a complete revirement unless something else happens.
It has changed the timeline however. I expect Russia to stall until the US election to see if it’s better to enter negotiations now or keep fighting.