[kergonath]

It’s very difficult to utterly destroy a country’s military force, particularly a country as huge as Russia, which has also a sizeable population. Ukraine cannot do it on its own and I see no appetite from anybody else to do it, so I think it is unlikely to happen.

Of course, it is also very difficult to utterly destroy a country’s economic power. Unfortunately, in Russia’s case, they have the raw materials and a population they can basically enslave. Hitting hard at refineries is a good strategy, it’s a weak point in the whole structure. Hopefully it’ll be enough.

Honestly, I don’t see an easy or clean way out of this. One possibility is that they’ll grind themselves badly enough to become completely irrelevant. Unfortunately that means a good chunk of Ukraine gets ground down along the way. One can hope for a coup, but then whatever comes after might well be worse.

Then, hopefully Ukraine can rebuild as a free nation.

[phicoh]

Russia's military force currently relies on men willing to die for money. That could change. But Putin seems reluctant to force the general population to die in Ukraine.

Classic economic theory suggests that the amount you need offer to people willing to die goes up over time.

For Ukraine the main thing is to get to the point that Russia doesn't attack any more. There is no need for Ukraine to concur any part of Russia. Even getting the currently occupied land back is mostly optional.

[ivan_gammel]

This war has already changed. Near-stalemate on the front lines, exchange of strikes on civilian infrastructure (Ukraine made to Belgorod what Russia made to Kiev). It‘s a nuclear war without nukes, aiming at strategic defeat without advancing armies. And Russia definitely has more resources for it.

[drysine]

>It‘s a nuclear war without nukes

No, it's not. Even Ukrainians rarely target civilians.

[ivan_gammel]

A few days ago Ukraine knocked out central heating infrastructure in Belgorod, a regional capital with 350k people, which is unlikely to be repaired until spring. Two civilians repairing it from previous strikes were killed. Whether this is rare or not, it doesn’t change anything about what I said about changing character of the war: both sides largely gave up on trying to win on the battlefield and now attack energy infrastructure of each other, putting pressure on civilian population.

[drysine]

Targeting dual-purpose infrastructure is not the same as targeting civilians. The infra can be repaired, people cannot be resurrected.

[ivan_gammel]

When you knock out primary energy source in a large city instead of attacking military consumers, it has one goal - terror. Most people suffering from it will be civilians. There will likely be deaths. Look at the recent terrorist attack in Berlin by far left extremists: blackout of a single district resulted in at least one known direct casualty. How many people will die of hypothermia or inability to get help being locked in a high rise residential building? This is happening now in many places in Ukraine as well as in border regions of Russia. I do think it’s the same as targeting civilians directly.

[don_esteban]

They do target civilians. It is just not convenient to show it in the western sources, so you don't know about it.

However, it is true that they do not do it on the scale Israel is doing.

[drysine]

They do, but rarely. And I'm Russian, I don't depend on Western sources.

[drysine]

>Russia's military force currently relies on men willing to die for money.

And Ukrainian military force currently relies on kidnapping men on the street and dispatching them to the front line after minimal training.[0][4]

The borders of the Ukraine are closed for any man of conscription age - they can't get out.[1]

You can watch the videos with logos of Ukrainian telegram channels and see how it happens[2][3]. Imagine yourself in their place.

[0] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-recruitment-army/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis#...

[2] https://busification.org/

[3] https://t.me/busification

[4] https://busification.org/article

[atmavatar]

> Even getting the currently occupied land back is mostly optional.

That's only true in the short term.

If Russia gets out of the war with Ukraine with territory gains, that only serves as incentive to start up again after Russia can regroup. After all, Putin's stated long-term goal is to take the entire country (among others) and restore the USSR.

Of course, taking back the occupied land is also easier said than done, as it would severely weaken Putin domestically to have expended all these resources and lives for nothing. There's no way he can allow that.

Both countries are in a catch-22.

[phicoh]

There is the issue that Russia tends to attack weak countries. The Baltic countries are small and also something Russia would like to have. But part of NATO.

Ukraine was seen as easy to take over. But that was clearly a wrong assessment.

[ivan_gammel]

> After all, Putin's stated long-term goal is to take the entire country (among others) and restore the USSR.

This was never a stated goal.

[majewsky]

> "I have said many times that the Russian and Ukrainian people are one nation, in fact. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours [...] But you know we have an old parable, an old rule: wherever a Russian soldier steps, it is ours."

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/6/27/putin-confirms-...

[ivan_gammel]

I’m well aware of this quote. It does not imply that there was at any moment of time a goal to seize the entire Ukraine or to restore USSR.

[clort]

That they sent special forces to Kyiv to take over the government on the first days of the invasion is not implication?

[ajross]

That's misunderstanding the model of actors. "Russia" isn't "Putin". "Countries" act in the best interests of their power structure, not their leaders.

Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.

And obviously that's an unstable/unpredictable equilibrium, because groups don't decide collectively like that and exactly how a coup works is never known until it does. But it's the way literally every other government of every other failed state has fallen[1], and there's no reason to think this one will fare any differently.

[1] Well, there's "unexpected death of the leader" thing too.

[ponector]

>> "Russia" isn't "Putin"

However putin is a good representative of russian people who easily travel to other country 5000+ km to die for cash and imperial narratives. If putin dies tomorrow war wouldn't stop.

[kergonath]

> That's misunderstanding the model of actors. "Russia" isn't "Putin". "Countries" act in the best interests of their power structure, not their leaders.

No, I am not misunderstanding. For all intents and purposes, at the moment Putin’s will is Russia’s will. And it looks like he knows his weaknesses within the country and is willing to let marginal populations bear the weight of his ambitions while keeping his power base comfortable enough. Of course he might end up like Stalin, at which point who knows? But it might not be much better for Ukraine, and in the meantime Putin keeps giving the orders.

> Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.

He can get most soldiers rich enough for this to drag on for quite a long time. They probably would be happier elsewhere, but they don’t have a say. The generals is another problem, but so far Putin is quite effective at finding loyal ones.

[ajross]

"There will not be a coup" is on the tombstone of like every failed leader ever. Economics doesn't change. Countries aren't people, even if the people running them try desperately to make you think so.

I'm not saying that Putin is going to be deposed next week, or year, or even ever. I'm saying that the Russian government is no less susceptible to the circumstances that produce coups than any other failed state, and failed states are the circumstances that produce coups.

At the end of the day, all government is ultimately by the consent of the governed. But predicting how and when that consent will be withdrawn that's is hard part.

[ivan_gammel]

Except that Russia isn’t failed state. It’s politically stable (even more than before war), can mostly serve its population. The fact that it’s currently engaged in an expensive war, changes nothing.

[wiseowise]

Even more so, they actively capitalize on the state of war to unite population.