[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.

[drysine]

>When you knock out primary energy source in a large city instead of attacking military consumers, it has one goal - terror.

Not if that city's industry is contributing to the war effort.

>Most people suffering from it will be civilians. There will likely be deaths.

You can say that about Western sanctions on Russia too. How many people have died because of a single MRI scanner or cancer drug that couldn't be bought by a Russian hospital?

Was it the "nuclear war without nukes" since the day the West imposed blanket sanctions on Russian economy?

Or did that "nuclear war without nukes" started in 2014-2015 when the Ukraine cut electricity and water supply to Crimea? "It has one goal - terror", right?

[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?

[ivan_gammel]

Is Venezuela US state now or not?

Also, looking at Russian track record specifically, is Georgia, which was militarily defeated in 2008, part of Russia? Did they formally annex Abkhazia or Transnistria? Does Lukashenko report to Putin?