By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A leading military thinktank’s report indicates Russia is positioned to sustain its invasion of Ukraine through 2026, despite potential economic and manpower challenges. The Kremlin’s defense spending has significantly increased, doubling in real terms since 2021 to fund extensive military operations. While recruitment numbers may be facing difficulties, Russia continues to develop and deploy advanced weaponry, posing a growing missile and drone threat to Europe that necessitates increased NATO investment in defense systems.
Read the original article here
It appears to be a prevailing sentiment that Russia can, and likely will, continue its military operations in Ukraine through at least 2026. This isn’t a particularly surprising conclusion, as wars, at their core, are sustained by a complex interplay of political will and material capacity. When one side decides to “say uncle,” it’s often a deeply political decision as much as a practical one. In Russia’s current political landscape, throwing in the towel doesn’t seem to be on the table.
What might be more surprising, however, is the idea that Russia could achieve any significant territorial gains. The front lines have been locked in a grinding stalemate for over two years, and there’s little indication that this dynamic is poised for a dramatic shift anytime soon. Ukraine’s resolve to resist remains unbroken, and despite concerns about manpower, the pervasive use of drones, coupled with crucial intelligence support from Western powers, has created a battlefield environment that strongly favors the defender. Even if Russia were teetering on the brink of collapse, their political system is adept at projecting an image of control, maintaining the facade that everything is proceeding according to plan until an abrupt, unexpected change occurs.
Russia’s strategic approach appears to be one of absolute commitment, with no discernible plan for failure. It’s an all-or-nothing gambit, a strategy that allows them to control the narrative of escalation. This policy is built on a foundation of misinformation, which their populace seems to accept. In contrast, Western nations are held accountable to their citizens and find it far more difficult to engage in such extensive deception. It’s almost as if Russia *must* continue fighting, because halting their military actions would signal the end of their current trajectory. Their economy has, in many ways, become intrinsically linked to the production of armaments and military hardware, a grim reality that fuels the ongoing conflict.
The notion of Russia being able to sustain the conflict is not in question, but rather the effectiveness with which they can do so. Recent assessments suggest they may have crossed a critical threshold, experiencing more casualties – both dead and wounded – than they can adequately replenish with new recruits. Furthermore, the front lines have settled into yet another near-total stalemate. One perspective is that if external interference were absent, the situation might have resolved much sooner, given the disparity in size between Russia and Ukraine. The very fact that the war is still raging underscores Russia’s inability to achieve outright victory, though they are capable of inflicting immense damage.
The human and material cost for Russia has been staggering. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost, cities have been devastated, and critical infrastructure has been destroyed, all without any clear path to victory. Their reserves of armored vehicles have been depleted, forcing reliance on older artillery systems. Billions of dollars worth of aircraft have been lost, leading to a cautious and limited use of remaining aerial assets. Their air defense capabilities, it seems, have proven insufficient to protect their vast territory, and they are reportedly under constant assault. Troop deaths are estimated to be alarmingly high, potentially exceeding 30,000 per month, and reports suggest they are beginning to face recruitment challenges, which, if true, would be a significant development.
Some observers anticipate a rapid collapse of Russia, drawing parallels to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It’s a common sentiment that the signs of such an ending are often only recognized in hindsight, and the hope is for this to occur sooner rather than later. The idea of Russia needing more than just a year or two to surrender the conflict isn’t surprising to many, although the longevity of the war is a point of significant discussion and frustration.
There’s a strong argument to be made that neither Russia nor Ukraine can single-handedly “fight” the war indefinitely without external support or a fundamental shift in circumstances. The assertion that drones and cruise missiles alone don’t win wars is valid; they are often viewed as tools rather than decisive factors. Some suggest these are presented as justifications for increased defense spending, rather than genuine solutions to complex geopolitical problems. The argument that nations should be capable of addressing multiple issues concurrently, like investing in both defense and domestic needs, is compelling.
While the front lines may appear static, behind the scenes, Ukraine has been targeting Russia’s vital oil and gas industries with drones, inflicting financial pressure. The reported disruption of Starlink services for Russian forces could also be a significant tactical advantage for Ukraine. There have even been reports of Ukraine successfully reclaiming territory in recent actions, suggesting that the stalemate may not be as absolute as it appears. Some reports indicate that a Russian line did indeed collapse recently across a significant front, with Russian forces reportedly abandoning their positions. This occurred without Ukraine deploying its mobile armor divisions, as muddy conditions have hampered their effectiveness.
It’s also noted that Russia’s ability to form new armored divisions has been hampered by a lack of operational vehicles. The notion that a swift Ukrainian surrender is being actively pursued for political gain, perhaps for a prestigious peace prize, is a concerning possibility for Ukraine’s future. This external pressure is seen by some as a more significant existential threat than Russia’s direct assaults. The very discussion of Russia’s capacity to continue fighting is, in itself, damaging to their international image, drawing parallels to past prolonged conflicts where public awareness and engagement varied greatly.
The idea that the US, under certain administrations, might actively work to force a Ukrainian surrender into an unfavorable peace is deeply concerning for Ukraine. Reports of halted arms deliveries and potential pressure on allies to cease supplying Ukraine are alarming. Such actions, coupled with a lack of genuine pressure on Russia, would drastically alter the strategic landscape. Some analyses suggest that Russia has made significant territorial gains in recent years, and at that pace, they could reclaim substantial portions of their claimed territory.
The question of how Western alliances, such as the EU and NATO, are strategizing for the potential collapse of Putin’s regime is also a critical one. Whispers of financial instability within Russia further fuel speculation about their long-term staying power. The adage that in war, one only truly fights on two days – the day it begins and the day it ends – highlights the protracted nature of the current conflict.
Concerns are mounting over Russia’s aging Soviet-era equipment, with stockpiles reportedly dwindling. This means that decades-old tanks are unlikely to be effective in driving further progress against Ukraine, especially when newer equipment has already proven insufficient. The strategy employed by the Biden administration, providing Ukraine with just enough to survive rather than enough to decisively win, is a point of contention for some, who believe a more robust and immediate commitment from the outset would have ended the war sooner. The fact that Biden was president for a significant portion of the war, including its initiation, is a historical reality.
The potential for Russia to be embarrassed by losing to a smaller nation could be a driving factor in their continued, stubborn refusal to withdraw. It is crucial to remember that Russia holds the power to end the conflict at any time. Ukraine, far from being small, is a determined nation, and its people’s resolve was a significant miscalculation by the Russian leadership. The idea of Ukraine eventually winning through attrition, by leveraging their greater manpower, is a possibility, though the pace of progress is acknowledged as slow.
The narrative of Russia being on the verge of collapse has been circulating since the initial invasion, but the reality on the ground suggests a more complex and protracted situation. Their ability to rebuild and reconstitute military units is reportedly weakening, and any measures to rectify this would place further strain on their economy and industrial capacity. The Russian army’s effectiveness is diminishing, requiring more soldiers for fewer gains, and they are depleting their Soviet-era equipment stockpiles. Conversely, Ukraine benefits from resupply by European nations with active industrial bases. Peace, in the form of withdrawing troops to pre-war borders, is presented as a logical and advantageous option for Russia, though their commitment to such a path remains questionable.
The notion of Russia’s “three-week war” has become a stark reminder of their initial strategic miscalculations, with significant human and material losses incurred. Had they committed more forces from the outset, they might have achieved their objectives more quickly and with fewer casualties, but their lack of decisive commitment has prolonged the conflict. The hope remains that Russia will eventually deem the cost of the war to outweigh any perceived benefit. The strategic value of targeting oil refineries, for instance, is questioned if they can be quickly repaired and export revenue remains largely unaffected.
While Ukraine has made recent territorial gains, the troop numbers and the ratio of losses are not consistently favorable. Nevertheless, Ukraine continues to regain land, and there’s speculation about potential future large-scale attacks, possibly involving stockpiled missiles. The dire state of tank supply is also a matter of concern for some observers. The phrase “say uncle” in this context means to surrender or give up, and the very question of Russia’s ability to continue fighting is seen as damaging to their image. The effectiveness of internal propaganda systems is highlighted, with significant resources invested in prolonged conflicts that could have been used for domestic development. The argument that not all territory is equal, and that Russia is approaching heavily fortified cities, adds another layer of complexity to the situation.