By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent DIA report to the US House of Representatives indicates that Vladimir Putin remains committed to his original war aims in Ukraine: Ukrainian neutrality and territorial partition. Putin views the conflict as an existential struggle against the West, impacting his power and legacy. Despite substantial military losses—estimated at over 10,000 ground vehicles and 700,000 personnel—Russia plans to continue its war of attrition through at least 2025, while simultaneously engaging in asymmetric warfare and destabilization efforts against the West. This strategy is pursued despite a weakened military capacity to directly confront NATO.
Read the original article here
Putin remains confident in Russia’s ultimate victory in Ukraine, US intelligence reports indicate. This unwavering belief, however, seems less rooted in realistic military assessments and more tied to a long-term strategic gamble, fueled by a circle of “yes men” and a belief that time is on his side.
He seemingly doesn’t factor in the immense human cost of the prolonged conflict, viewing the war as a means to reclaim territories lost after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Each captured square kilometer, in his view, solidifies his legacy and bolster’s his image of strength and greatness. This perspective, arguably detached from reality, allows him to disregard the staggering losses suffered by both the Russian military and the Ukrainian population.
The strategy hinges on wearing down the West’s support for Ukraine. His hope is that prolonged conflict will lead to fatigue among Western nations, resulting in a reduction in aid and ultimately, Ukraine’s surrender. This calculated gamble relies heavily on the belief that the West lacks the political will to sustain its commitment to Ukraine over an extended period.
Putin’s confidence may also be significantly inflated by the lack of dissenting voices within his inner circle. Surrounded by sycophants, he receives only information that reinforces his pre-existing beliefs, preventing any honest assessment of Russia’s military capabilities or strategic shortcomings. The absence of critical feedback further solidifies his conviction in an eventual Russian triumph.
Moreover, the Russian economy and societal structures are inextricably linked to the war effort. Decades of propaganda and systemic manipulation have molded a populace seemingly accepting of continuous conflict. The very fabric of the Russian economy is currently structured to sustain this war, making a quick cessation of hostilities exceptionally difficult, even if such a decision were politically desirable.
Despite being no longer a superpower, Russia still retains significant capacity to cause widespread disruption. However, its military capabilities are facing severe limitations. The heavy reliance on artillery, coupled with dwindling stockpiles and the need to source weaponry from less reliable sources like North Korea, significantly undermines Russia’s long-term combat effectiveness. This indicates that Russia’s ability to sustain a prolonged high-intensity conflict is diminishing.
The situation is further complicated by the perceived role of external actors. The actions of certain figures in Western governments have arguably inadvertently aided Putin’s cause. These actions, possibly driven by personal agendas or miscalculations, have eroded confidence in Western support for Ukraine, bolstering Putin’s belief in a long-term strategic victory.
Another layer of complexity lies in the potentially conflicting objectives within the Kremlin itself. While Putin seeks a complete victory, some advisors may advocate for a negotiated settlement even if it means significant territorial concessions. This internal struggle highlights the precarious nature of Putin’s position and raises questions about the sustainability of his unwavering confidence.
Ultimately, Putin’s confidence appears to stem from a combination of factors, including a distorted view of reality fueled by an echo chamber of sycophants, a long-term strategic calculation aiming to wear down Western resolve, and arguably unintended support from within the West itself. These intertwined factors contribute to his optimistic, yet arguably unrealistic, assessment of the war’s outcome.
However, several underlying factors suggest a different narrative. Russia’s economy is in dire straits, facing potential collapse if the war continues. The military’s capabilities are being strained by dwindling resources and increasingly obsolete equipment. The prolonged conflict is likely to continue to destabilize Russia’s position within the international community, further isolating the country and eroding its global influence. The potential for even more considerable internal turmoil remains a distinct possibility should the conflict continue, which ultimately underscores the fragility of Putin’s apparent confidence. His survival, in fact, appears deeply intertwined with the outcome of the war, leaving him with little option but to cling to the belief in an ultimate Russian victory.