6 ms·

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,

by yosito 5y ago

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?

ceejayoz 5y ago
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.
- lstodd 5y ago
  There no more is any face to save.
Teever 5y ago
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.
- xtian 5y ago
  Willing to put money on any of that?
  - tlear 5y ago
    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.
    - xtian 5y ago
      The terms of surrender Putin is asking for are: - Ukraine remains neutral - No foreign weapons in Ukraine No regime change, no occupation. I wonder why you’re talking about that. Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?
      - dbsmith83 5y ago
        > Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable? It's obvious. The people want to be free to control their own destiny.
        xtian 5y ago
        So free to be used as a chess piece against Russia by Western masters
        beefield 5y ago
        Ah, now I get it. So Russia is just liberating Ukraine from being used by West. How noble. Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country should not have the freedom to make their own choice whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?
        xtian 5y ago
        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?
        beefield 5y ago
        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?
- jb1991 5y ago
  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.
  - Teever 5y ago
    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.
- coffeefirst 5y ago
  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.
- yosito 5y ago
  If it reaches that point, wouldn't a desperate Putin likely launch nukes as a last resort before being overthrown?
krona 5y ago
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.)
- ben_w 5y ago
  Or a Berlin Airlift II. 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.
  - idontwantthis 5y ago
    SpaceX Starship supply drops? 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.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      If they’re NATO aircraft, I suspect Russia wouldn’t want to attack them for similar reasons to why the USSR didn’t in Berlin ‘48-‘49. Starship is unlikely to be ready soon enough, but if it was, as it’s a rocket I would worry about it triggering ICBM alarms.
- megous 5y ago
  Have you seen the map of areas around Kyiv? It's woods left and right and a flat land. How's a siege even going to work?
andrewxdiamond 5y ago
> Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it. The West seems intent on not getting involved Involving nukes would quickly get everyone involved. No one wants nuclear war.
- password54321 5y ago
  Except potentially a desperate Putin. I do think the only hope is the Russian military not following him at that point.
  - hk__2 5y ago
    > Except potentially a desperate Putin. No. Putin is not crazy; he knows it would be stupid to do so.
    - yosito 5y ago
      > Putin is not crazy From what I've seen, he may be the most delusional human being alive.
    - password54321 5y ago
      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.
      - pell 5y ago
        >If Putin fails this, it is over for him. 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.
freedomben 5y ago
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.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
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.
baybal2 5y ago
> 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
- cozzyd 5y ago
  > Volgograd The motherland falls?
k__ 5y ago
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.
Sebb767 5y ago
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.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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.
MrLeap 5y ago
Replace "Ukraine" with "Afghanistan" and "Russia" with "United States" might make the question easier. We have the benefit of hindsight there.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  > Replace "Ukraine" with "Afghanistan" and "Russia" with "United States" Or just Russia with USSR, after all they lost a war in Afghanistan 3 decades before the US.
Mikeb85 5y ago
You need to understand what Putin believes. 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?
rurabe 5y ago
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.
- rurabe 5y ago
  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.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly. They would never have been enough; that was the abusive partner going "if you'd just do x I wouldn't have to hit you so much". Consider the ease with which Russia violated their own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...).
jcranmer 5y ago
There's a few possible endgames for Ukraine. 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.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  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/t1884007.shtml 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.
chernevik 5y ago
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.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  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.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
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).

by yosito 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago

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.

lstodd 5y ago
There no more is any face to save.

Teever 5y ago

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.

xtian 5y ago
Willing to put money on any of that?
- tlear 5y ago
  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.
  - xtian 5y ago
    The terms of surrender Putin is asking for are: - Ukraine remains neutral - No foreign weapons in Ukraine No regime change, no occupation. I wonder why you’re talking about that. Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?
    - dbsmith83 5y ago
      > Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable? It's obvious. The people want to be free to control their own destiny.
      - xtian 5y ago
        So free to be used as a chess piece against Russia by Western masters
        beefield 5y ago
        Ah, now I get it. So Russia is just liberating Ukraine from being used by West. How noble. Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country should not have the freedom to make their own choice whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?
        xtian 5y ago
        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?
        beefield 5y ago
        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?
jb1991 5y ago
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.
- Teever 5y ago
  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.
coffeefirst 5y ago
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.
yosito 5y ago
If it reaches that point, wouldn't a desperate Putin likely launch nukes as a last resort before being overthrown?

krona 5y ago

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.)

ben_w 5y ago
Or a Berlin Airlift II. 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.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  SpaceX Starship supply drops? 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.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    If they’re NATO aircraft, I suspect Russia wouldn’t want to attack them for similar reasons to why the USSR didn’t in Berlin ‘48-‘49. Starship is unlikely to be ready soon enough, but if it was, as it’s a rocket I would worry about it triggering ICBM alarms.
megous 5y ago
Have you seen the map of areas around Kyiv? It's woods left and right and a flat land. How's a siege even going to work?

andrewxdiamond 5y ago

> Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it. The West seems intent on not getting involved Involving nukes would quickly get everyone involved. No one wants nuclear war.

password54321 5y ago
Except potentially a desperate Putin. I do think the only hope is the Russian military not following him at that point.
- hk__2 5y ago
  > Except potentially a desperate Putin. No. Putin is not crazy; he knows it would be stupid to do so.
  - yosito 5y ago
    > Putin is not crazy From what I've seen, he may be the most delusional human being alive.
  - password54321 5y ago
    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.
    - pell 5y ago
      >If Putin fails this, it is over for him. 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.

freedomben 5y ago

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.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

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.

baybal2 5y ago

> 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

cozzyd 5y ago
> Volgograd The motherland falls?

k__ 5y ago

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.

Sebb767 5y ago

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.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> 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.

MrLeap 5y ago

Replace "Ukraine" with "Afghanistan" and "Russia" with "United States" might make the question easier. We have the benefit of hindsight there.

littlestymaar 5y ago
> Replace "Ukraine" with "Afghanistan" and "Russia" with "United States" Or just Russia with USSR, after all they lost a war in Afghanistan 3 decades before the US.

Mikeb85 5y ago

You need to understand what Putin believes. 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?

rurabe 5y ago

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.

rurabe 5y ago
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.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly. They would never have been enough; that was the abusive partner going "if you'd just do x I wouldn't have to hit you so much". Consider the ease with which Russia violated their own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...).

jcranmer 5y ago

There's a few possible endgames for Ukraine. 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.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
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/t1884007.shtml 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.

chernevik 5y ago

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.

InitialLastName 5y ago
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.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

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).