The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 and the US Civil War both offer hints and glimpses of how the Ukraine War may conclude: either France's negotiated humiliation or the South's total collapse.
We have been hearing these confident predictions of imminent collapse for four years now.
The real plan was ever always only to mousetrap the Americans into intervening. Whether that happens directly or whether the Americans have to bail their european catamites out again is of no consequence.
The mechanics of a war of attrition can be understood through the failure of a steel beam. Initial loads produce only minor, almost imperceptible deflections. These are the modest, grinding advances. As the load increases, however, internal stresses accumulate within the material. The structure enters a critical phase where its capacity for elastic recovery is exhausted; it begins to deform plastically. At this point, each additional increment of stress produces disproportionate deformation, leading rapidly to total structural collapse.
The strategic question mirrors the physical one: can Russia sustain the mounting pressure, and is Ukrainian resistance progressing toward that failure point? The available evidence suggests affirmative answers in both cases. If Ukrainian forces are indeed approaching that plastic phase, where resilience gives way to permanent deformation, then Russia's prior rate of advance becomes irrelevant. The final collapse, whenever it arrives, will be dictated by military physics, which does not care about yesterday’s incremental gains.
Great piece Kevin, with some real gems embedded in your article, like this one: "Where once they saw a nubile, resource-rich bride to be wooed with wealth and arms, they now confront a spent spinster—her liabilities and demands far outweighing her fading assets and promise."
We have the same approach to political writing: it is also literature.
Your conclusion is that we are much more now in the US war between the states kind of war, in Ukraine? I think so too.
The argument that the Russian war effort has peaked and is therefore past its culmination point is only valid if the numbers back it up. Obviously both sides have a motive to manipulate the numbers so what we have will be hazy at best.
On recruitment, in 2025 Russia signed more than 400,000 new contracts. The other side of this is an estimation of Russian losses, which besides the fevered ramblings of the British media, are probably less than 200,000 dead for the entire conflict. And remember, Russia has not even turned to conscription yet, meaning they have a huge margin on manpower.
Russia is spending roughly 5% of GDP on the war in Ukraine, this is not much of a strain, during WW2 the Soviets spent roughly 60% of GDP on the war effort. In fact, Russia is nowhere near full capacity since they are holding back due to the risk of a full scale war with NATO in the future.
Russia's pubic debt is 16% of GDP, which is absurdly low by international standards. Corporate debt is rising, yet is still relatively low. Interest rates are super high at 21% but inflation seems under control and so rates should reduce. Fairly normal economic impacts for a nation at war. Russia has huge amounts of fiscal space, which I doubt they are particularly interested in using.
Russia holds more than $800 billion in central bank reserves, much of it in gold, which is highly liquid nowadays. Oil may be about to skyrocket if the US attacks Iran and they close the Straits of Hormuz. Besides even with oil cheap, it does not have much impact, Russia is not living "pay check to pay check."
Russia's housing sector is under pressure, prices are rising, supply diminishing and mortgage rates are super high, but this is nothing fatal, the West's housing markets feature similar issues.
Run this same analysis on Ukraine and you will see why this war will inevitably end in Kiev's collapse.
Excelente!!
¡Gracias totales!
We have been hearing these confident predictions of imminent collapse for four years now.
The real plan was ever always only to mousetrap the Americans into intervening. Whether that happens directly or whether the Americans have to bail their european catamites out again is of no consequence.
The mechanics of a war of attrition can be understood through the failure of a steel beam. Initial loads produce only minor, almost imperceptible deflections. These are the modest, grinding advances. As the load increases, however, internal stresses accumulate within the material. The structure enters a critical phase where its capacity for elastic recovery is exhausted; it begins to deform plastically. At this point, each additional increment of stress produces disproportionate deformation, leading rapidly to total structural collapse.
The strategic question mirrors the physical one: can Russia sustain the mounting pressure, and is Ukrainian resistance progressing toward that failure point? The available evidence suggests affirmative answers in both cases. If Ukrainian forces are indeed approaching that plastic phase, where resilience gives way to permanent deformation, then Russia's prior rate of advance becomes irrelevant. The final collapse, whenever it arrives, will be dictated by military physics, which does not care about yesterday’s incremental gains.
Great piece Kevin, with some real gems embedded in your article, like this one: "Where once they saw a nubile, resource-rich bride to be wooed with wealth and arms, they now confront a spent spinster—her liabilities and demands far outweighing her fading assets and promise."
We have the same approach to political writing: it is also literature.
Your conclusion is that we are much more now in the US war between the states kind of war, in Ukraine? I think so too.
The argument that the Russian war effort has peaked and is therefore past its culmination point is only valid if the numbers back it up. Obviously both sides have a motive to manipulate the numbers so what we have will be hazy at best.
On recruitment, in 2025 Russia signed more than 400,000 new contracts. The other side of this is an estimation of Russian losses, which besides the fevered ramblings of the British media, are probably less than 200,000 dead for the entire conflict. And remember, Russia has not even turned to conscription yet, meaning they have a huge margin on manpower.
Russia is spending roughly 5% of GDP on the war in Ukraine, this is not much of a strain, during WW2 the Soviets spent roughly 60% of GDP on the war effort. In fact, Russia is nowhere near full capacity since they are holding back due to the risk of a full scale war with NATO in the future.
Russia's pubic debt is 16% of GDP, which is absurdly low by international standards. Corporate debt is rising, yet is still relatively low. Interest rates are super high at 21% but inflation seems under control and so rates should reduce. Fairly normal economic impacts for a nation at war. Russia has huge amounts of fiscal space, which I doubt they are particularly interested in using.
Russia holds more than $800 billion in central bank reserves, much of it in gold, which is highly liquid nowadays. Oil may be about to skyrocket if the US attacks Iran and they close the Straits of Hormuz. Besides even with oil cheap, it does not have much impact, Russia is not living "pay check to pay check."
Russia's housing sector is under pressure, prices are rising, supply diminishing and mortgage rates are super high, but this is nothing fatal, the West's housing markets feature similar issues.
Run this same analysis on Ukraine and you will see why this war will inevitably end in Kiev's collapse.
www.busification.org
It's not about advancing.
You clearly never wore a uniform...it's about grinding down the Ukies, in detail, across a front a thousand Km long.
When did Russia state that "advancing" was an aim of the SMO? Advancing is a by-product of decimating Ukraine.
Maybe it would help if you knew what the word "decimate" means, and then took a look at Ukraine's demographic charts for the coming decades.
Or, maybe not..maybe you'll just come back and ask another stupid question.
Thanks and that's a perfect summary!