Russian forces do not have the potential to capture the cities of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipro or Kharkiv, but they could take advantage of the chaos in the management of Ukrainian troops and achieve some local victories.

This is in line with what most sources agree on. And although these losses may sound like a lot, it's not much more than the area of Luxembourg, when Ukrainian gains in Kursk Oblast are counted too.
This is a war of attrition, meaning Ukraine is giving up land, so they can draw back and spare their soldiers, while taking down a higher ratio of advancing Russian soldiers.
These advances by Russia come at extreme cost, and the idea is that Russia will not be able to sustain such losses.

[–] Valmond 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And that russian losses, economy, production cannot go on more than some 3-6-12 months depending on who you listen to. It won't stop stop ofc but just make the russians less and less effective until it's more or less useless.

[–] Buffalox 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

russian losses, economy, production cannot go on more than some 3-6-12 months

Absolutely, Russia is already slowly collapsing, and it will get a lot worse in 2025. I'm guessing around summer or autumn so many things in Russia will disintegrate that they can't continue effectively anymore. Real estate market can collapse at any time, collapsing the financial market, but the financial markets are already so hard stressed it's basically the same as if it was collapsing. In practice neither people or businesses can borrow money.
bankruptcies are already high despite a heated economy, and this will only get worse as inflation rises. Russia is beginning to price regulate to keep inflation in check, but that will only lead to shortages and more bankruptcies.

There is no way Russia can continue this war and get its economy together. The cracks are showing everywhere now. Air traffic is having safety regulations lifted to keep flying, and just the other day, 2 passenger planes had to emergency land, because of engine failure.

Russia is out of options and out of reserves, from this point the decline will only accelerate.

[–] Valmond 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm only hoping Trump won't "lift all sanctions" or something equally disastrous that won't save russia but let it keep going a year or two more.

But it seems like he's surrounded with some reasonable people when it comes to Ukraine so there is hope, I hope!

[–] Klear 4 points 1 day ago

I would expect the weapons lobby to be more powerful than Trump, and in rare case it might actually work out as a positive. Could be wrong though. Things could get real bad.

[–] Buffalox 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I certainly hope so too, if he does however, sanctions from the EU and many countries will remain in force. And Trump will create a diplomatic nightmare towards essentially all countries that are traditionally friendly or even allies of USA.

[–] Valmond 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, "interesting times" ahead for sure.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

20 square km? Wow at that rate, Russia will have conquered all 233.000 square km of Ukraine by 2057.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago

That was the plan from the beginning... "It will only take 3 daycades", they said.

[–] chonglibloodsport 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes and Russia is losing 100 soldiers per square km (2000 casualties per day). By 2057 they will have lost 23 million soldiers!

[–] rottingleaf 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ukraine's losses as a percentage of population are already not so far from what those hypothetical 23mln would feel. Cause Russia's population is 140mln, and Ukraine's population was about 40mln, but unfortunately a lot of that number became refugees.

[–] chonglibloodsport 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes though it seems some formerly friendly to Ukraine countries are becoming less friendly and turning a cynical eye towards Ukrainian refugees. Maybe some of those will return to Ukraine and help in the war effort (or even just help contribute to the economy which helps the war effort indirectly).

[–] rottingleaf 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People most of all care for their families.

[–] chonglibloodsport 2 points 1 day ago

Yes and that’s such an important part of returning home: reuniting with your family.

[–] rottingleaf 1 points 1 day ago

You generally get the areas logistically cut off as a bonus, unless they are defended by something like pre-war Azov. And even in that case, despite propaganda advantage, qualified men of Azov could have been used better.

You also start losing territory faster the more your troops are exhausted, and that's important when your population is a third of your enemy's population.

And by exhaustion I mean human losses and morale, and general qualifications dropping. Which is why qualified men of Azov and plenty other units could and should have been used to train new mobilization waves better non-stop while Russians had problems.

And damn fucking obviously with such numeric imbalance the late 2023 attempt at an offensive the Soviet way, with numbers and firepower and not brains, shouldn't have been attempted. That's the "liberated" number. It was very expensive.

What I mean is that right now Ukraine has manpower shortage.

If I were the God-Emperor of Ukraine and could make any kind of decision, I'd devise a new, far shorter line of contact and undertake mass evacuation beyond and near it. I'd perform a planned, organized, in many well thought-out small steps, retreat towards it (preferably laying minefields as vast as life in process). And I'd squeal all over the world that I'm losing the damned war, because if Russia doesn't just implode soon, that will happen.

One ironic thing is - if Russia wins the war, it will soon probably have a coup, or even a restoration of democracy. But Ukraine can't allow Russia to win the war for it to lose the war.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The mark of a great army is how well they retreat, regroup, and fight on. Ukraine is doing well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Well, they also face quite some serious desertion issues at the moment too.

[–] Buffalox 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

War is hell on both sides. The difference is Ukraine is fighting to survive, Russia is fighting for a pipe dream.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not questioning that, I just am very worried how this will continue - especially after the orange toddler gets into office.

[–] Buffalox 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, it seems impossible to try to guess what he will do? But even without US aid, Ukraine will still receive much aid from other countries, and Ukraine's economy is doing much much better than Russia. 15 days to go before Trump is inaugurated.

If I had to make a guess, it seems like Putin isn't willing to negotiate, and it might be Trump's best bet to continue or even increase aid to Ukraine to save face, when it turns out peace negotiations are going nowhere.

But that's probably just me trying to rationalize what I hope for.

[–] rottingleaf 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I've read one of the loudest recent cases is a brigade most of the personnel of which was sent to train in France.

I suppose a lot of those are kids of rich parents or something like that, picked for that for a bribe, and they probably expected war to end before they return.

It can be that similar dynamics affect other units with lots of desertions, but that's just guessing from news.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not just that one unfortunately. It's likely at around 100.000 deserters now, and half of that were from 2024 alone.

https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-10-14/alarm-in-ukraine-over-increasing-number-of-army-deserters.html

[–] rottingleaf 3 points 1 day ago

I think people doing that for reasons from the article should be allowed to return as instructors. If there are enough new people to instruct, that is, but for that one can try attracting more foreign volunteers. With money if possible. And yes, to have longer leaves, therapy.

Anyway, rotation is a thing. It also involves putting less (mentally too) weary units to harder roles.

Also people incapable of fighting due to injuries can probably be still fit to serve in AD, or as remote drone operators (not how they do it from the neighboring field, but from far away). I guess droid armies are still not today's reality, but they should work both on morale and on reducing further casualties.

[–] rottingleaf -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No it's not.

Ukrainian troops' qualification levels are dropping and they have manpower shortages. You can train a man in realistic time during war (if you have competent men free to do that, and not fighting), but you can't grow a baby into a man and then train him in realistic time during war.

Mercenaries are not a complete replacement.

I mean, for an ex-Soviet army they've shown class (and by the way, nothing in that was about inferiority of Soviet doctrine or something, just using it right). But they can't fight a trice stronger adversary with more than trice stronger economy on their own territory (which means that their own economy is half-dead), without some other component, and the amount of Western help right now is just not sufficient.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's easy to look at the side of a war of attrition where you have more information and say that they're losing because you don't have as much information on the other side. Russia has every reason to present itself as still having massive reserves to call upon because it helps their case.

Many people thought that Germany was on the cusp of winning WWI during the spring offensive in 1918.

That being said I think Ukraine's situation isn't great. I was surprised at the seeming depth of the Russia's reserves. They have been sustaining incredible losses for the last year almost, and yet continue to advance. During previous phases of the war we saw them overextend themselves and then have to retreat against Ukrainian advances.

Russia's reserves are finite both in terms of manpower and equipment. They are demonstrating strain in both categories and will presumably start to have sustainment issues soon. If Ukraine can hold together and stop the advance then presumably the next phase would be a negotiated peace hopefully. There's always a chance that some shoe could drop though. Putin could die or get overthrown, the west could withdraw all support, China could start providing blank-check support to Russia, Russia could successfully go into full-mobilization mode.

[–] rottingleaf 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I live in Russia. There even isn't much panic about being caught on the street to be conscripted, because that's still rare luck. Can't say anything about Russian economy, probably they are burning reserves to make it appear more stable from the inside than it really is.

Russia’s reserves are finite both in terms of manpower and equipment.

Three times those of Ukraine, with similar expenses.

They are demonstrating strain in both categories and will presumably start to have sustainment issues soon. If Ukraine can hold together and stop the advance then presumably the next phase would be a negotiated peace hopefully.

Except Ukraine is having these issues right now. It came there faster. I too think there will be something negotiated, but definitely not good.

Putin could die or get overthrown

I think whichever way this war ends, this will happen. It's just too much of a bloodbath, the war has to end somehow, and then he'll be reminded that there's more to that regime than one man.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There even isn’t much panic about being caught on the street to be conscripted

Because Russia hasn't mobilized besides the "partial mobilization" in 2022. The question is why. One theory is that they don't need to. The other theory is that they can't. I live in the US and remember the Iraq war. In 2004 one of the biggest things going around was that Bush was going to start conscription.

But if he were to have attempted mobilization the support for the war in the US would have instantly collapsed so instead he tried various things to fill the ranks like using mercenaries, "backdoor drafts" via stoploss, activating national guard, etc. And in the end, let's be honest, the US lost both of Bush's wars.

[–] rottingleaf 1 points 1 day ago

One theory is that they don’t need to.

They are giving citizenship to labor migrants for service there, and to various illegals, so I'd say they need it.

The other theory is that they can’t.

They can. That "partial mobilization" is still in effect. These people are simply afraid of calling anything by its name.

They want to pretend it's still 00s and we are an imperfect democracy with a counter-terrorist operation slowly going on in Northern Caucasus, we have a fairly elected president with his high rating, stability and booming economy and all that. They really liked that while it lasted.

But, ahem, they don't want to let go of power. Still, they are trying to call everything the words which would aesthetically fit into that atmosphere of 00s, and it doesn't make any sense for anyone outside their crowd.

And in the end, let’s be honest, the US lost both of Bush’s wars.

It lost the peace after. It won both wars.

I mean, one can redefine a lot of terms, but then USSR lost WWII, since it fscked up the restoration of its parts of Europe.

[–] Valmond 12 points 1 day ago

They'll get them back.

[–] T00l_shed 10 points 1 day ago

Don't forget that russia brought in new meat for the grinder. Slava Ukraini