From the updates I’ve seen, I get the sense that Russia is fighting through the culmination of their multi-front offensive in hopes of making gains ahead of the muddy season. I try not to remark too much about casualty rates, but the increase in tandem with the low ratio of tanks does seem to speak to this bit of speculation (not a military expert or even a “war nerd”, just following along as a layperson mind you).
From the updates I’ve seen, I get the sense that Russia is fighting through the culmination of their multi-front offensive in hopes of making gains ahead of the muddy season.
This is what confuses me about Russia’s choosing these huge losses in the past couple of months. In less than week the USA will have submitted all ballots for the Presidential election (with likely another week of confusion and complaints until the victor is clear). If Trump wins, he will destroy US and possibly European support for Ukraine causing Ukraine to be wiped out by Russia. If Harris wins, then at least the amount of military and economic support continues as it has so far, or it could get even larger. Even if Harris keeps the support the same, Putin doesn’t cannot take 4 more years at the current rate of attrition, and he’ll have to withdraw or be kicked out when the Russian well runs dry.
So when the answer is less than a month away, why double down on meat waves with such tremendous losses? Why not wait for the results of the election defensively, while building up your forces, and either go forward with attacking a then weakened Ukraine under Trump, or turn around and use your forces at home to attempt to suppress your population to keep Putin in power under a Harris win?
What would be another plausible benefit to ramping up your own casualties for marginal land gains when the outcome of the war is largely going to be influenced in a month or two?
You’re a general with political ambitions, and you’re sabotaging the strategies of a rival with malicious compliance. Who knows really, the point is that there isn’t a good reason for it because we don’t know who in that chain of command might benefit - and the null hypothesis that it’s an unforced error definitely can remain in play here, I’m not discounting that at all.
My guess would be that they wa’t to settle the frontiers as far as they possibly can to keep as much territory as possible with a cease fire that can become a frozen frontier. If Harris wins, they can ask for a cease fire, and then will the US and Europe deny it? If Trump wins, Russia can probably take the whole dombass rapidly before accepting a cease fire from Ukraine.
If Harris wins, they can ask for a cease fire, and then will the US and Europe deny it?
I think a ceasefire will be denied. There was an unofficial ceasefire in 2014 with the taking of Crimea. A month later Russia invaded Donbass. Until Feb 2022, the frontlines were fairly fixed. Then in Feb 2022 Russia invaded Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv while trying to take even more Ukranian territory.
A ceasefire from Russia only means they will be back to take more land later. That, and Russia’s war machine is running out of equipment. Unless China suddenly starts supplying tanks and armored vehicles, in 6 months to a year Russia will be fielding horses for assults.
I see two reasons for Russia to accept a cease fire : they are happy with what they took and want to keep it, so a cease fire is better because there is no treaty to give back anything ; or they want a bit of time to rebuild their supply of ammo and equipment before they go back at it.
The first one would be if the US continue to support Ukraine. It would make it like the west is now supporting the war while Russia is asking for peace (totally hypocritical of course). Russia could stand on its positions and solidify them if it’s accepted. If Ukraine continue the war, it’ll be Ukraine on the offensive, which is a harder position.
The second one would be if Ukraine loses US support and ask for a cease fire after the dombass is fully taken. Russia wouldn’t be armed to take it to rebuild it’s supply before going again. The risk here would be that nato or UN send forces in Ukraine, and if Europe take this time to increase its weapon production too, but those are unlikely on a short term.
From the updates I’ve seen, I get the sense that Russia is fighting through the culmination of their multi-front offensive in hopes of making gains ahead of the muddy season. I try not to remark too much about casualty rates, but the increase in tandem with the low ratio of tanks does seem to speak to this bit of speculation (not a military expert or even a “war nerd”, just following along as a layperson mind you).
This is what confuses me about Russia’s choosing these huge losses in the past couple of months. In less than week the USA will have submitted all ballots for the Presidential election (with likely another week of confusion and complaints until the victor is clear). If Trump wins, he will destroy US and possibly European support for Ukraine causing Ukraine to be wiped out by Russia. If Harris wins, then at least the amount of military and economic support continues as it has so far, or it could get even larger. Even if Harris keeps the support the same, Putin doesn’t cannot take 4 more years at the current rate of attrition, and he’ll have to withdraw or be kicked out when the Russian well runs dry.
So when the answer is less than a month away, why double down on meat waves with such tremendous losses? Why not wait for the results of the election defensively, while building up your forces, and either go forward with attacking a then weakened Ukraine under Trump, or turn around and use your forces at home to attempt to suppress your population to keep Putin in power under a Harris win?
It’s too simple to assume Putin is the only one in Russia with an agenda, even though so much power has been consolidated with him.
What would be another plausible benefit to ramping up your own casualties for marginal land gains when the outcome of the war is largely going to be influenced in a month or two?
You’re a general with political ambitions, and you’re sabotaging the strategies of a rival with malicious compliance. Who knows really, the point is that there isn’t a good reason for it because we don’t know who in that chain of command might benefit - and the null hypothesis that it’s an unforced error definitely can remain in play here, I’m not discounting that at all.
My guess would be that they wa’t to settle the frontiers as far as they possibly can to keep as much territory as possible with a cease fire that can become a frozen frontier. If Harris wins, they can ask for a cease fire, and then will the US and Europe deny it? If Trump wins, Russia can probably take the whole dombass rapidly before accepting a cease fire from Ukraine.
It’s all speculation though.
I think a ceasefire will be denied. There was an unofficial ceasefire in 2014 with the taking of Crimea. A month later Russia invaded Donbass. Until Feb 2022, the frontlines were fairly fixed. Then in Feb 2022 Russia invaded Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv while trying to take even more Ukranian territory.
A ceasefire from Russia only means they will be back to take more land later. That, and Russia’s war machine is running out of equipment. Unless China suddenly starts supplying tanks and armored vehicles, in 6 months to a year Russia will be fielding horses for assults.
I see two reasons for Russia to accept a cease fire : they are happy with what they took and want to keep it, so a cease fire is better because there is no treaty to give back anything ; or they want a bit of time to rebuild their supply of ammo and equipment before they go back at it.
The first one would be if the US continue to support Ukraine. It would make it like the west is now supporting the war while Russia is asking for peace (totally hypocritical of course). Russia could stand on its positions and solidify them if it’s accepted. If Ukraine continue the war, it’ll be Ukraine on the offensive, which is a harder position.
The second one would be if Ukraine loses US support and ask for a cease fire after the dombass is fully taken. Russia wouldn’t be armed to take it to rebuild it’s supply before going again. The risk here would be that nato or UN send forces in Ukraine, and if Europe take this time to increase its weapon production too, but those are unlikely on a short term.