[miohtama]

Because Russian's war with Ukraine is unsustainable, something has to change for Putin for him to remain in power, and one option is an escalation with NATO.

Some other scenarios also explained in this good video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jDhYFSGkaAc

[FpUser]

>"something has to change for Putin for him to remain in power, and one option is an escalation with NATO"

I think us couch experts including author of that particular video have no fucking clue what he will do and what the true state of affairs is. Had all those expert prediction materialized Russia would've already disintegrated 10 times and Putin would've lost power in a first months.

[Mistletoe]

Luckily being 73 and in what appears to be poor health can’t last forever. I can’t imagine spending my twilight years being one of the most hated people on the planet, but the head of the USA and Russia seem to have no issues with that.

“Father Time is undefeated.” - LeBron James

[Jolter]

Hoping for Putin to get sick is unhelpful. Trump is still in power well past 80, after all. We would do better to plan for a future where Putin rules Russia for another 10-15 years.

[adabyron]

Trump is 80. Putin is 73.

[petre]

The poor health thing "Putin is sick" was a FSB psy-op. Maybe he's sick in the head but otherwise in good health.

[icantevenhold]

He does look a lot better than his American counterpart

[alt227]

Putin is a lot more careful about the image he projects and his public appearances than trump.

[simonh]

Why would Putin want people to think that Putin is sick or infirm, and his ability to lead might be compromised? His entire schtick is that he's a strongman leader and the only reliable option in Russia.

[petre]

It's basically targeted maketing. They pretty much wanted the West lethargic and unreactive at some point early in the war. Like "don't bother sending aid to Ukraine because Putin is kicking the bucket soon" kind of a narrative.

In Russia yes, they project the strongman narrative.

[simonh]

I’d have thought the effect would be the opposite. Support Ukraine because it’s only going to be a short war, as Russia will be giving up soon, so why let them get conquered?

[anticodon]

What? In other words, you're saying: "Russia is losing war with Ukraine, so it wants to start a second front with bigger enemy".

Also, how's Ukraine war is sustainable for Ukraine? It's economy is non-existent (almost 100% dependent on western donations), it has less than 50% of population of 2022 (they don't publish any population stats directly, but if you combine available statistics, there are about 10-15 millions left most of them old retired people or young people that are too young to send them to the front lines), they are losing territory every day.

This is some weird "Ukraine is winning but front is moving in the wrong direction" logic.

[kasey_junk]

A war doesn’t need to be sustainable for Ukraine, it’s existential. For the aggressor that backstop doesn’t exist. They could literally stop the war anytime they wanted so they need to continue to prove it’s sustainable to keep doing it.

[leonidasrup]

Not all wars have a simple way to say who is winning, who is loosing. See the Vietnam war, different Afgan wars.

[mcv]

Ukraine is gaining some ground, but very slowly. It's basically a stalemate. Except that Ukraine is making the war extremely costly for Russia with the recent attacks on refineries and other targets deep into Russia.

As long as the EU keeps supporting them, I think Ukraine will be better able to maintain the current situation than Russia. But Ukraine is nearly as exhausted as Russia, and I think a European coalition sending real practical ground and air support would help a lot. I suspect sufficient support could force a breakthrough in southern Ukraine an liberate a very large chunk of land very quickly.

The reason that's not happening is either that NATO thinks this would give Putin the excuse he needs for large scale mobilisation, or simply because Europe is afraid to get its hands dirty. I don't think the former is nearly as big an issue as some believe; Putin has never needed any action from NATO or EU members to justify escalation, and has never responded to imagined red lines getting crossed.

The latter is more likely. I think Europe needs to remember the sacrifice that Canada and the US brought to liberate Europe in WW2, and recognise the moral obligation that creates to liberate others in a similar position. Like Ukraine today.

[CapricornNoble]

> Ukraine is gaining some ground, but very slowly. It's basically a stalemate.

Ukraine has been gaining some open fields, while losing major urban areas. Kostyantynivka just fell and Russian troops are securing the high ground overlooking the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk urban conglomerate. Pokrovsk also fell faster than expected, suggesting that Ukraine increasingly lacks the infantry manpower density to defend urban terrain.

> As long as the EU keeps supporting them, I think Ukraine will be better able to maintain the current situation than Russia.

European support doesn't rectify Ukraine's critical vulnerability: manpower...or a lack thereof. Although Euro governments seem like they might start deporting military-age Ukrainian males back to Ukraine so they can be forcibly conscripted....because sending men to their deaths against their will screams "Western liberal values", or something.

> I think a European coalition sending real practical ground and air support would help a lot

Russian analysts have been coming on Western alt-media outlets warning that Russian hardliners are increasingly advocating for striking logistics and military production sites in Europe. HistoryLegends has a good video about how France, one of the more experienced and expeditionary European countries, absolutely struggled to even get a brigade into Romania for an exercise. Europe could definitely send air support.....but do you think European citizens are ready for their cities to eat Oreshniks (at a minimum) as a response?

> I suspect sufficient support could force a breakthrough in southern Ukraine an liberate a very large chunk of land very quickly.

There isn't enough combat engineering vehicles in all of Europe to clear lanes through the Surovikin Line. The Ukrainians already learned this the hard way in summer 2023.

[mcv]

> Kostyantynivka just fell

Has it finally fallen? Because Russia has been trying to take it for ages now, against staggering losses, and keeps claiming they control it when it turns out they don't. They do that a lot. Mostly because they desperately want to have good news to report to Putin. They are advancing, but incredibly slowly, and at enormous cost, and Ukraine regularly does take land back.

But you're absolutely right that Ukraine is short on manpower, unlike Russia which seems to have endless reserves of people to send to very rapid deaths. Ukraine is doing a lot to fill their manpower gap with drones, but their lack of manpower is exactly why I think Europe should come to their aid.

[CapricornNoble]

> They are advancing, but incredibly slowly

Their tactics have settled to extremely-small infantry infiltrations across almost the entire frontline. Warfare has evolved and concentrated mechanized assaults have been abject failures for both sides; it's far too easy to mass fires than it is to mass maneuver forces (see additional commentary (1) at the bottom). Russia's ground strategy is probably the least-risky way for them to keep pressure on the defenders and husband their own resources.

> their lack of manpower is exactly why I think Europe should come to their aid.

Be the change you want to see in the world: https://ildu.mil.gov.ua/news/how-join-armed-forces-ukraine

(1) Normally I would blame both air forces for lacking the capacity to systemically disrupt the defender at all depths.....but if we look at the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, the Israeli air force has total air dominance and their heavy mechanized forces are still struggling to advance. FPV drones basically quadruple the range of every ATGM team at 10% of the price.

[miohtama]

It has turned out to be luck in disguise when Trump stopped weapon deliveries to Ukraine. Because Biden, Trump, and the Germans set all kinds of limitations so as not to strike Russia. For the first three years, Ukrainians were defending with one arm tied behind their back.

Now, when they finally can damage the Russian economy enough to make the war unsustainable for them, there is a chance we can get an end to this confict.

[worldthruword]

Ukr is attacking Retailers (Wildberries) in Russia because Russia helps Iran attack Amazon (US retailer) Data centers in the Gulf.

[petre]

Nothing to do with Amazon. They sell military and dual use goods, that's why.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/07/26/8045972/

[tclancy]

I think you’re misreading the comment and conflating Putin’s survival with the current war. I believe the OP is saying the administration can’t keep selling the war with Ukraine as a good idea indefinitely and will need to pivot to something more marketable. In our Internet-shaped world, everything is entertainment. This particular show has run its course and needs a pivot, add new actors, make a Very Special Episode or kill off one of the main characters.

[GTP]

> one option is an escalation with NATO.

Wouldn't this make the situation much worse for Russia, and therefore for him as well? The oligarchs will know who is to blame if Putin starts a war with NATO.

[8note]

war with nato means he can more easily convince the russian public to go along with mobilization

russians arent excited to go die in ukraine, but defending the homeland from NATO is a different story

[cbg0]

The oligarchs aren't the ones controlling Putin, it's the other way around. But yes, escalation with NATO is a very poor idea, given Russia's struggles with a single non-NATO country.

[GTP]

I belive it's the other way around only up to a point. If the situation gets too bad, I believe they have the resources to overthrow him.

[miohtama]

Regime security for Putin in an escalation/mass mobilisation situation is high. The chances of the Russian economy surviving are poor.

[WJW]

Often economic crisis leads to less regime security, not more. Why would it be different in Russia?

[miohtama]

Watch the video in the link and it is quite well explained there.

[talkingtab]

Do not bother with the youtube video.The essential ideas is that Putin could scare European Countries into surrendering Ukraine. This video legitimizes that scare tactic. Nor does it deal with the underlying issue, which is that like Hitler and Nixon, Putin believes he is infallible. As a result the world as he sees it and the world as it is will continue to diverge.

[fractallyte]

On the contrary, the video gives an excellent analysis of Putin's options, and it's definitely worth watching.

You're right that Putin believes he's infallible, and the Nielsen makes the point that Putin often picks the most stupid option. But it also emphasizes that Europe needs to be ready to act if Putin decides to escalate, and if the US chooses to abandon NATO.

[cingraa]

Does not pass the smell test. The Youtuber has an axe to grind. Also, tracking in the URL.

Why make it more difficult if the current situation is unsustainable? Does not make sense.

[Eupolemos]

> The Youtuber has an axe to grind

It is Anders Puck Nielsen who is a serious military researcher and commentator. He is a go-to by any television channel in Denmark and has been from the start of the war.

He very much passes the smell test :)

[miohtama]

Removed the copy-paste tracker.