What I'm wondering, with Russia being a nuclear power, what is Ukraine's end game? They seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying invading force so far, but what's next? They either run out of steam defending, or they start to hit back at Russia, but then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it. The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if they won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction, they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either. Is getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only hope?
Throwing nukes at Ukraine is not going to happen. First, it will likely force the west into action (the current inaction is in part caused by the promise of no nukes, which would be void if Russia starts using them), but it comes with much larger problems. For one, the key locations in Ukraine are quite close to the Russian border and Kyiv and Moscow itself are only about 750km apart; the fallout would directly affect Russia and maybe even Moscow. Secondly, Ukraine is rather useless to Russia as a nuclear wasteland. They need the strategic position, yes, but that's quite useless if you can't keep troops there, and they also need the people and the infrastructure. That they currently keep civilian infrastructure mostly intact shows as much.
I'm pretty sure their endgame is to fend of Russia long enough until it ceases military action, possibly with loosing some border territory. Due to cost, sanctions and internal resistance, it's quite likely that they won't fight this forever.
The best scenario for Ukraine is that they're able to check the Russian invasion, and prevent troops from reaching and occupying Kyiv and other major cities, causing the war to drag on in a stalemate. If it goes well for them, the Russian will to press the invasion collapses, and they withdraw without winning any concessions. Note that I do not think this is at all likely.
The more likely scenario (that ends "well" for Ukraine) is that Russia successfully pushes its invasion to completion and installs a new government, but the invasion shifts to a phase of intense resistance (see, e.g., Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan) that ultimately collapses the moment Russian troops pull out, perhaps with similar speed as the Afghani government collapsed after the US's withdrawal.
Both of those scenarios assume that a combination of economic sanctions and unpopularity of the war are sufficient to prevent Russia from maintaining troops in Ukraine indefinitely, which is an assumption that may or may not be true (and I think there are very few people who are qualified enough to credibly opine on its truth!). If the assumption is wrong, then the conflict might stabilize in a conflict that looks like Nargano-Karabakh (~30 years), Cyprus (~50 years), or Korea (~70 years).
It's possible to theorize about a scenario in which Ukraine does so well that they're able to counterattack and retake control of Crimea and the Donbass, or even punch into Russia, but such a scenario is so unlikely that I think it should rightly be considered fantasy.
I'm not 100% convinced about an unlikely Ukraine best scenario.
Much depends on the question if China is holding a lifeline for trading with Russia.
Considering international protest against Russia and that new Russian loans from China are currently blocked, it seems that Russia overestimated their friendship, which was "unbreakable" - https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1...
It seems that the unbreakable already shows some fractures.
Considering the vote against Russia wasn't vetoed by China and left Russia alone.
Additionally, i have more than average hope that the Russian population ( which has many relatives in Ukraine) is an underestimated variable by Putin in this mess.
That's the conventional picture of Putin: he's a calculating, amoral, Machiavellian genius playing the west like a fiddle.
Recent events have... not been kind to that theory. Putin certainly seems off. Nothing about this invasion makes sense strategically, and that was true even back when we thought it would be executed competently!
If Putin fails this, it is over for him. There is no turning back from this and continuing to lead the country. The whole idea of invading can be classified as crazy and was not expected to actually happen by many. I just wouldn't underestimate him if he is backed into a corner.
Does not have to be the case. If the loyalists around him don't topple him he can sell this one way or another to the Russian public. I think a lot of people outside of Russia think it's some heavily censored, propaganda-fueled place. Most Russians are actually very skeptical of what their government says, it's very common to roll one's eyes at official statements. However, this does not change the wish to remain powerful even if just in a self-preserving image. If that does not work, the victimhood card also is often used successfully. If Putin can remain popular and the cronies around him don't replace him it would not have to be over for him at all.
Many things can be sold to the public, but it's particularly hard to sell a steady stream of coffins, and especially so if you can't showcase significant military gains.
Ukraine's end game is to try to bleed Russia until they decide to withdraw. I don't think "hitting back" is ever on the table, if you mean Ukraine invading Russia. That's not going to happen.
Russia could still unload a few nukes. If you can't take Kiev, you can always nuke it. But that has a number of problems. One of the smaller ones is it's really hard to maintain the "oh, that's not really an independent nation, they're really part of Russia" lie when you nuke them.
I'm just guessing of course but I would think the goal is to defeat the invading force. Once they're gone there's not necessarily a need to hit back at Russia. My hope would be that Russia wouldn't send another round of attacks because the hotter this gets, the more risk of other countries coming to Ukraine's aid to stop atrocities. In fact that could even be a hope for Ukraine.
I think the end game is likely "make it costly enough to stay", so Russia makes a face-saving withdrawal on a "we successfully demilitarized Ukraine by getting rid of a lot of their military equipment" basis.
> What I'm wondering, with Russia being a nuclear power, what is Ukraine's end game?
As with all asymmetrical warfare against invasion and occupation, bleed the invader until the price exceeds what they are willing to pay.
> then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it.
That would probably be terminal for the Russian regime.
> The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if they won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction, they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either
Nuking Ukraine over conventional escalation against invasion lowers the expected marginal cost of NATO involvement.
Deterrence calculus relies as much on confidence that not crossing conventionally understood escalation triggers will not provoke the response one hopes to avoid as on the confidence that crossing them will.
> Is getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only hope
The collapse of will to fight and support the war, whether in the troops or the public, is
always the ultimate constraint on war, whether the leadership drives to actual collapse or stops in advance because they see it coming.
No need for nukes. Kyiv will become a Sarajevo II. Our TV screens will be full of starving children which will eventually force a surrender (or a pretext for a NATO intervention.)
I didn’t know before I moved here that the GDR authorities officially referred to the Berlin Wall as the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart), which matches some of Putin’s recent rhetoric.
Cargo planes dropping pallets will be legitimate targets.
I wonder if Starship would be fast and high enough for enough time that it would be hard to destroy before it landed.
I suspect nuclear weapons are surprisingly useless for military purposes. They can flatten a city, but those who are underground may survive the blast and heat effects surprisingly well. The radiation is awful, but it comes mostly from fallout, and any attacking troops are as subject to that as the defenders.
I suppose a tactical nuke could be useful against a massed army formation, or blow a hole in a defensive line. But a force defending in depth doesn't present those kind of opportunities.
Nuclear weapons could be strategically important in their destruction of productive facilities and people, and their destruction of crucial point targets (such as an opponent's nuclear missiles). And of course they are enormously destructive and dirty. But they're mostly terror weapons.
And there are the enormous downsides of these things, which overwhelm any benefit they might accrue. There are reasons no one has used these things since WW II.
Chemical weapons are a different matter, and I am a little worried they may appear before this is all over.
Right, with Ukraine being supplied primarily by relatively untouchable (without massive escalation) NATO countries (and no end to that supply looking likely), the "total war"-style strategic bombing isn't really a meaningful aspect.
Additionally, killing large numbers of Ukrainian civilians (by conventional or nuclear bombing of the cities) would be crushing for the "liberating our people" narrative that Putin has relied on so far for support from the Russian people.
In the most positive light, from what i can tell from different sources.
The invasion is costing Russia 20 billion $ / day and the sanctions probably hastened shortage of money.
There is not enough rockets for Russia invading more than 10 days ( source: ex- Estland security chief)
The end goal for Ukraine at this moment would be to prove itselve as a democracy and hopefully hasten eg. NATO entry as a mean to deter future "issues".
And strengthening it's bound with the West and use IMF loans to rebuild for a future again. Away from Russia as they already expressed in the past.
NATO is a strategic alliance why has it's origin to deter a Russian threat. I believe they proved it, although they don't check all the boxes ( eg. No terrorial disputes allowed, that is why Russia invaded in the first place in 2014 after they expressed the will to join NATO).
Unfortunately, Ukraine is next to the Black Sea which is crucial for the Russian fleet. So it's a very difficult topic. Forcing Russia to move it's fleet safehaven isn't realistic ( i think).
Ukraine's endgame is to inflict so many casualties and destroy so much equipment that the Russians have no choice but to turn back in shame which along with sanctions from the rest of the world will hopefully lead to an uprising by the Russian people and an overthrow of Putin and his Oligarchs.
And if anyone is skeptical this can work, I refer you to Vietnam, Afghanistan, the American Revolution, and a few cases where even the Romans would decide to pack it in with a “these people are crazy, they’re never going to stop and it’s not worth it.”
It’s too optimistic to think this will be the end of Putin, but if by chance it happens, it will not be the first time a catastrophic war lead to the overthrow of the Russian government.
For me the greatest outcome is not that Ukraine successfully defends itself but that the Russian people defeat Putin themselves, that this war opens their eyes to a change that is actually possible by the masses.
Absolutely. I also think that calls for other countries to help Ukraine with troops are premature.
Look at Afghanistan, the US spent decades with troops on the ground, rebuilding every single institution only to have it all collapse before they even pulled out. In the end the people of Afghanistan didn't feel any ownership in any of it because they didn't build it, so when it came time to defend it they didn't.
I think that the US has learned from that, and in the 8 years since Putin invaded Crimea they have been equipping and training the Ukrainians to defend their own country. If the people of Ukraine make it out of this as an independent country it will a historical moment signifying that Ukraine as a nation is here to stay for the long term because their citizens believe in the institutions and the ideals of their nation.
What I hope for the most from this conflict is the development of stable democracies in both Ukraine and Russia.
Kyiv will fall. But Kyiv is not whole of Ukraine. West Ukraine hates russians a lot more, it has a long border with Polland. There is something like 1million Ukranians living in Polland.. there is already a stream of volunteers crossing the border heading east.
Cost of Ukrainian occupation is going to be high. Can that stop russians? we don't know, but they will pay in blood and money. This is not Syria or Georgia where small professional units could make a difference. This is a huge country with a big population and a long border through which weapons and volunteers will flow.
I had my doubts about Ukranian will to fight(I was born in Kyiv), I was wrong. I think Putin miscalculated quite a bit.
No - Russia is defending the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics where Ukrainian nationalists have killed over 14,000 men, women, and children over the past eight years by shelling civilian areas.
The agreed upon diplomatic solution was the Minsk agreements, which Ukraine completely disregarded.
edit: HN is preventing me from replying to any more posts for an unspecified amount of time. We love our liberal values, don't we folks?
Don't change the topic. You were the one claiming that requesting Ukraine stay neutral is not unreasonable (implying that it is fine to attack another country if they do not abide to the request).
Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?
I never said they shouldn’t have the freedom to choose. Never mind that they didn’t- the US literally just sponsored a color revolution there in 2014. But don’t expect Russia to not react if their security is threatened.
Pathetic. You implied it is not unreasonable to attack another country and require "neutrality", which by definition means you think you are entitled to deny another sovereign country their freedom to choose.
Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.
Where was Libya or Yugoslavia’s “freedom to choose” when NATO invaded? Russia has no reason to believe that NATO will behave peacefully as it expands ever eastward.
We are not talking about NATO. We are talking about your claim that other sovereign countries should not have the freedom to choose who they play chess with.
I mean, you have all the freedom to make yourself more lucrative voluntary chess playing companion than NATO, nobody is denying that. Instead you choose to be a failed developing totalitarian country bullying and attacking its neighbours and you wonder why they want to join NATO?
You don’t know what I’m talking about? The continual shelling of civilian areas in Donetsk and Lugansk by Ukraine for the past eight years.
Yeah, support for Russia in these areas is so low that they were celebrating in the streets when Russia announced their recognition and people fled into Russia when Ukraine escalated hostilities.
Anyone who knows the history of the relationships between Russia and all of its neighbors understands that no such terms can be accepted.
Russia did not grow to its huge size by being a nice neighbor.
For many centuries, the Russian Empire, then its successor, the Soviet Union, have continuously threatened their neighbors, issued ultimatums to them and launched unprovoked attacks against them.
Every time when Russia or the Soviet Union gave an ultimatum to some neighbor, there were plenty of voices that insisted that any Russian demands must be satisfied in order to not anger the great neighbor, so that Russia would not have reasons for further aggressive behavior.
Every time when these supposedly wise voices have been listened and the Russian demands have been accepted, that has only strengthened Russia and weakened the neighbor.
The consequences were always that later Russia came with even more shameless demands or it just attacked and occupied partially or totally the neighbor.
There is no indication that Putin will ever behave in a different manner than his ancestors, so there is no rational reason to believe that accepting any Russian demands can guarantee that they will stop at that, instead of demanding even more later.
For decades, or maybe centuries, there was a joke that circulated in all neighbor countries of Russia:
Where are the frontiers of Russia ?
Wherever they want ...
You mean besides the one where he said he wasn't planning an invasion? Use Google and I'm sure you can find some. I have to say, you really must be enjoying the kool-aid. Every leader tells lies. If you really can't think of an example of Putin lying, then I feel sorry for your naivety or complete and utter pathological denial.
He believes in the Russian Empire, in the "Third Rome" and Ukraine is important because Kyiv was the capital of the first Rus empire 1000 years ago.
It's also the "origin myth" that gets propagated to the Russian armed forces (see Cathedral of the Armed Forces) and public. Also, will the oligarchs continue to support him it he just takes a scorched earth approach? Will the armed forces? If the myth fades who will follow?
The military endgame sadly is somewhere between a destroyed Ukraine in perpetual conflict and regime change, depending on the efficacy of Ukrainian resistance.
Sorry to say, autocrats do not withdraw from a conflict like this regardless of attrition. Their power is their legitimacy and defeat is a threat to both their rule and probably their life. I mean look at how much flak Biden took withdrawing from Afghanistan despite being able to say that it was a horrible idea and someone else's fault.
This is a little different from Afghanistan and Iraq though, Russia's security concerns are valid and probably ameliorated by Ukraine as a failed state (as opposed to a NATO aligned state) so conquering and pacifying the country is not necessary.
The only real humanitarian solution is a diplomatic solution. I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.
Honestly, I fear the resistance being too effective.
Russia is on the offensive when viewing this conflict in isolation. Zoom out to geopolitics and it is very much on the defensive.
They are locked in this conflict and if they cannot achieve their goals they will escalate. They also own the most nuclear weapons of any country on earth.
This is what the Art of War says when it says not to put enemies in a corner.
This is also a very realpolitik take on this. It goes without saying that all of this is a humanitarian disaster.
Sure, they could nuke them, but what would they gain?
I don't think, Putin wants radioactive wastelands so close to his border. And I think the political implications, even in Russia itself would be devastating for him.
> They seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying invading force so far, but what's next? They either run out of steam defending, or they start to hit back at Russia, but then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it.
Two options:
1) Push until Rostov, and take Black Sea access from Russia. If they manage to destroy a big portion of invading force, there will certainly be nobody to defend it, as they already "spent" a big part of Southern Military District force. They will also be under cover of their own air defence, and Russia not, as it already moved all its Buks into Ukraine.
2) A daring move to capture Volgograd. Why? Again, its would be defenders are in forests of Belarus now, doing nothing, running out of supplies. Volgograd is the most militarily significant city in South Russia.
Big portion of of Russia's low readiness units are stationed in the middle of nowhere in Urals, and West Siberia.
The elite Souther Military District (circle sign) units are already locked in Crimea, and inside Southern Ukraine
