By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite suffering staggering losses of 4,800 vehicles and over 36,600 casualties in April, Russia’s military presence in Ukraine is growing, reaching 600,000 troops—nearly double the initial invasion force. This expansion is fueled by high recruitment bonuses and a surprisingly robust Russian economy, currently allocating 40% of its budget to defense, even amid declining oil prices. However, this costly endeavor is unsustainable in the long term, forcing Russia to raise taxes and prioritize war industries, leaving the Kremlin walking a precarious economic and political tightrope. General Cavoli warns of Russia’s commitment to a protracted conflict with the West.
Read the original article here
At the current rate of advance and losses, Russia’s conquest of Ukraine would stretch far beyond any realistic timeframe. The projected completion date of 2256, with a staggering 101 million casualties, paints a picture of a protracted conflict utterly unsustainable. Such a scenario is less a military operation and more a demographic apocalypse, leaving both nations decimated long before any decisive victory is achieved.
This glacial pace highlights the inherent flaws in Russia’s strategy. The sheer cost in human lives—a figure potentially exceeding 200 million—far surpasses any conceivable gain. Even if Putin were willing to sacrifice such a monumental number of Russian citizens, the sheer scale of losses would cripple the nation’s future, shattering its economy and societal fabric. The potential for a complete societal collapse far outweighs any territorial gains.
The comparison to World War I is apt. Both sides in that conflict endured years of brutal stalemate before the eventual collapse of empires. The key difference is that while the Western Allies possessed the industrial capacity to endure the war of attrition, Russia’s current situation is vastly different. The ongoing conflict is not only draining Russia’s manpower but also its resources and economic viability.
The projection of a centuries-long conflict assumes a constant rate of attrition, a static situation unlikely to persist. The reality is far more complex. A sudden breakthrough, a decisive military victory by either side, or a political collapse within either nation could drastically alter the trajectory of the war. A major factor influencing this is the continued military aid provided to Ukraine by its allies. This aid acts as a crucial buffer, delaying Ukraine’s potential breaking point while accelerating the pressure on Russia’s already strained resources and morale.
It’s important to remember that Russia’s seemingly endless commitment isn’t rooted solely in a desire for territorial expansion. The conflict is also fueled by a “lost empire complex,” stemming from the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Putin’s ambition is to reclaim lost territory and restore Russia’s perceived superpower status. However, this ambition, pursued at the current cost, will only lead to Russia’s self-destruction.
The exceptionally low fertility rates of both Russia and Ukraine introduce another dimension to the conflict. The massive casualties projected will decimate both populations long before any potential victory is achieved. This demographic crisis threatens to destabilize both countries, potentially leading to social and political upheaval regardless of the battlefield outcome. Even the success in seizing Ukrainian territory becomes meaningless if the conquering force is simultaneously committing demographic suicide.
The slow pace of advance, akin to that of a snail as one humorous comparison noted, underscores the limitations of Russia’s military capabilities. The need to rely on outside aid from countries like North Korea for manpower and equipment speaks volumes about their weakened state. The idea that this protracted conflict would continue for centuries is not merely improbable, it’s an absurd extrapolation of the present. The current rate of advance is not a measure of sustainable commitment, but rather a reflection of Russia’s significant limitations.
In reality, it’s far more probable that Russia will reach a breaking point long before 2256. This breaking point could be military, economic, or political—or a combination of these factors. The internal pressures mounting within Russia, the strain on its resources, and the ongoing drain of its human capital will likely lead to a collapse far sooner than a centuries-long war of attrition. This means focusing on the fragility of the Russian state and the potential for its implosion, rather than purely on the battlefield dynamics, offers a more realistic assessment of the conflict’s ultimate outcome. The question is not *if* Russia will reach a breaking point, but *when*.