"Ukraine quagmire - prestige over strategy?" Topic

Last week I did read a short article about so-called quagmire wars, where a major military power ends up getting stuck in a long, futile war against a seemingly lesser opponent (e.g. Soviet military in Afganistan). The author suggested that the present Russian invasion has been developing into a similar conflict. Some of the key features of such a conflict were described as:

1.) The major military power enters the conflict confident of it's superiority over the lesser opponent.
2.) After initial successes, small military set-backs start to gradually building up, until the major military power finds itself fought to a stand-still.
3.) Once the stand-still has been reached, further resources keep on being thrown into the conflict, in an effort to break the deadlock, even if these do not make any real difference.

The author also suggested that at this last stage, rational strategic decision-making starts to suffer as the major military power tries to "maintain the course" instead of re-evaluating the situation and pulling back from the conflict. Partially this seems to be associated with the "sunk costs" fallacy, where the previous losses are used to justify further future losses. However, the decision-making can also become rather emotionally driven, where actual strategic goals become subservient to an observed need for the country and its military to maintain their (presumed) prestige, respect, honour and glory, to recover lost face and to revenge what is being felt as a humiliation by the lesser opponent.

_________________________________________________________

Russian military, despite its nominally vast assets, had been more or less struck in a quagmire in Ukraine from the summer onwards, with mounting losses and little progress. Since then, new offensive operations have been mainly limited to maintaining the very slowly creeping advance in Bakhmut (for no obvious strategic objective) and to barbarously bombarding civilian infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Russian leadership has been announcing that they are willing to up their stakes, including the "partial mobilisation" of nominally 300 000 men to reinforce the military, as well as the recent announcement of intending to more permanently increase the size of the military and reorganise it, with no expenses spared. Quantitatively, Russia still has large amounts of military equipment and manpower that could potentially be mobilised (their practical quality might be another issue).

Russian political decision-making recently has not been described as entirely rational. Furthermore, in the present conflict there is not at risk only the national prestige (or what is left of it), but also the very prestige of the people at the top – and in an authoritarian/dictatorial regime, maintaining face and prestige tends to rank quite highly on the priority list of those at the top.

So it may be that the Russian leadership will keep on pouring their resources into the Ukraine quagmire for as long as they can, whether it makes any strategic sense or not.

IDK-

This doesn't feel like a "little war" like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. In none of these wars was the "other side" fielding anything like conventional armies that could stand on the battlefield and fight against the superpower arrayed against it. Ukraine's armed forces are fighting toe-to-toe with Russia's in very conventional battles using what are pretty close to bleeding edge weapons- drones, smart munitions, C3whateverISR, advanced ADA, and nearly top-of-the-line MBTs. They are staying in the field and contesting every town/village/fighting position and have launched what can only be described as successful conventional counter offensives. The Taliban/Afgan rebels, AlQs, Iraqi Baathists, Iraqi Shia Mahdis, and Charlie/NVA could only DREAM have having such capabilities.

But this is a quagmire… just not THAT KIND. It's something different and older.

This feels more like WWI.

The Russian invasion in the winter was more like the Fall of '14 with great armies maneuvering and losses being stunning (by WWI standards this war is a small affair, but by modern standards…). The Russian invasion ran out of steam and the Ukrainians went on the offensive and clocked them a few times. Now both sides are pretty much involved in a stalemate while they regroup their armies and sort out their logistics for what will sure to be another around of offensives (1916 anyone?). Artillery is king now as ADA has shut down both sides air forces beyond using drones and smart munitions. Trenches are everywhere too because exposed soldiers and material dies very quickly otherwise. History may not repeat itself, but is sure likes to rhyme.

In short, this is a war of attrition.

Both sides only have so many soldiers, so much materials, and only limited means to reconstitute said troops and materials. Russia is digging into its Cold War reserves now and is even leaning on allies (North Korea and Iran) for additional munitions and drones. Ukraine is doing the same with NATO- drawing on our war stocks at frighting rates. The winner will be the side that's willing to fight it out to the last soldier/munition. Ukraine is fighting for its life, while Putin is using his soldiers to fight for his ("some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'M willing to make!")!

Can they, the Russians and Putin, win? Yes, if they are willing to go the extra mile and spend that last munition/life to achieve it.

The question is whether the Russian people will make that sacrifice? It also begs the question about whether the Ukrainians will make the sacrifice (with Russian war crimes and their disregard of innocent life- that seems likely) and will the West continue, or even be able to, support Ukraine in this war?

In the other wars the conflict was only live vs. death for one side. In this one it's live vs. death for BOTH sides. It's two anacondas wrapped in a death grip and slowly strangling each other. The question is who has the better grip and who can take the squeeze?

Interesting… the artillery, trenches, destruction, terrain, all remind me of the same thing. I never expected war to dissolve back into this kind of conflict.

Russian incompetence from the top down has been major, almost legendary by now. As long as the Russians can't successfully execute modern combined arms ops. They will be left with using their FA to destroy critical infrastructure like power plants, etc. and targeting civilians, etc. Trying to beat the Ukraine into submission. If they can't maneuver, they will just use the "big guns". Pushing things back to times reminiscent of the artillery barrages and trenches of WWI.

It went back to WWI as we saw modern maneuver warfare was spawned to break the stalemate of the trenches. Then perfected in WWII. With the Russian failure to fight modern mobile warfare. They have no option. Highly doubt they will ever go on even a small offensive. They have little to no offensive capabilities and much of their assets were lost in the earlier months of the fighting.

I think as long as the Ukraine has US/NATO, etc. support it, will be able to push the Russians out of their territory. But it may be costly. For both sides. Unless the Russians fold and pull out … which I don't think will happen. The war has a long way to go. If Russia will hold the Crimea at all costs. They don't have the forces to do it. Will Putin then go to WMDs ?

All good points, but I feel that currently this one is more like Korea than any other war, although I suspect before long it will be another Yom Kippur.

Ukraine is the new Israel…

I think it is similar to WW1 and the Korean War. The lethality of the weapon systems involved causes heavy casualties and the inability of either side to break the will of the opponent means that combatants become exhausted and entrench. When they get enough operational ability to go on the offensive, they do (with varied success).

Either there will be a cessation of hostilities or one side will break due to exhaustion and instability on the home front.

I suspect before long it will be another Yom Kippur.

Ukraine is the new Israel…

If the Ukraine continues to get the support they will eventually go on the offensive. Don't think the Russians can stop them.

When they get enough operational ability to go on the offensive, they do

Don't think the Russians will be able to go on the offensive again. They will only attempt to hold. Even in the Crimea, what do the Russians have to hold effectively or even counterattack ?

Comparisons to WWI and Korean War are also interesting, especially on the tactical and operational level.

However, on the strategic level, what are the strategic goals of Russia at the moment? Kremlin spokesman time and again repeats how nothing will prevent the Russian military from achieving their goals in Ukraine, but what those goals actually are seems to be never stated – and it is uncertain if the leaders in Kremlin themselves know those goals. Not stating the objectives in public could of course be explained by needs of operational security, but perhaps a bigger reason is not to state anything concrete to the public, thus allowing any outcomes to be announced later on as "Mission Accomplished" rather then as abject failure to reach the stated goals.

Kremlin leadership is more interested in remaining in power than to achieve any specific outcomes – but to remain in power, they need to maintain certain perceived prestige in the eyes of the public (augmented by a fear of the oppressive state security machine). And a poor outcome for the Ukraine quagmire might result in a dangerous loss of face in the face of the domestic public. As for perceived prestige abroad, Russian military has lost a lot of it, but they probably still have some left in various directions.

Kremlin representatives are also frequently moaning about the Ukrainian unwillingness to get to a negotiation table, though for the time being it seems rather unlikely that the Kremlin leadership would be willing to negotiate in good faith. Also, they have not exactly been doing acts of good will to help bring forth any negotiations.

As for Ukraine, their short term strategic goals seem to be rather clear for the time being: reclaiming captured regions, and stopping Russian attacks against infrastructure.

The Russian aims were to take out the leadership, occupy the capital and install a puppet government. Murder anyine they didn't like the look of.

The wheels came off that one pretty quick.

Doesn't take a huge lot of imagination to see Ukraine is likely to grind the Russians down. They tried more conscripts. No joy. Tried same plan repeatedly. No joy. Tried blustering against the west. No joy.

The writing is on that wall.
Anyone silly or confident enough to read it out loud gets dragged off or finds themselves headed out a window.
Russians still seem to be spreading those negative vibes though.

The whole thing is a tar pit. The only good result is getting out. Once you're in a tar pit though, not easy to get back out.

Be better for the Russians and everyone if the Russian hawks were offed and a more reasonable leadership replaced them.

Be better for the Russians and everyone if the Russian hawks were offed and a more reasonable leadership replaced them.

Too bad this probably won't happen anytime soon, if ever, I'd think. But the only way this can be stopped if the Russians withdraw … Or the Ukraine continues to attrite the Russians. To the point, they will be all gone from the Ukraine and/or dead.

The WWI comparison might also apply as regards the "sunken costs" fallacy.

Back in 1915, the western front was in a stalemate, though enormous numbers of men and material had already been lost. And nobody in power was willing to admit that those losses had been for nothing, so more men and material kept on being thrown into the grinder in the vain hopes that some sort of victory would eventually manifest.

Now in 2022, Russia finds itself in stalemate, with large numbers of men and material lost. And those in power in Russia cannot admit that all those losses could have been for nothing (neither are they willing to admit the full extent of the losses, but that is another issue), so more men and material are scraped together and thrown into the grinder in the hopes that something that can be flagged as a victory at home would eventually manifest.

No matter what Putin will claim victory …

I believe this is whistling past the graveyard…in this case the Ukrainian graveyard. The Russians will probably launch an offensive from Belarus in late winter, early spring. The Ukrainians are being bled white at Bakmuht and have no ability undertake any offensive, no matter how much material they get.

We will have to wait and see. I've whistled by graveyards before. However, again, based on the Russians' military performance which is dismal to marginal at best. My $ is on the Ukraine with US/NATO/etc., support.

Russia's tactics have morphed into WWI style human wave attacks, a meatgrinder war of attrition. They are an incompetent poorly functioning excuse for a military. Only rivaled by some Mid East or African militaries currently and in the past.

My study of history, training & experience on active duty, '79-'90 leading an Air Assault Rifle Plt and later commanding a Mech Co. in the US Army. Tells me human waves, poorly trained motivated, lead, etc. forces that can't execute combined arms modern mobile maneuver warfare in the 21st Century. Is not a war "winner" … And many US high ranking US RET Officers, seem to agree. Or in actuality I agree with them.

carnot Where will they get the tanks and APC's. Russia is a "small" country low GDP like the UK. They have confirmed losses that are vast. (see link

These are stuff confirmed by pictures so way below actual losses.
 
Russia – 8560, of which: destroyed: 5352, damaged: 218, abandoned: 303, captured: 2687

 
This list only includes destroyed vehicles and equipment of which photo or videographic evidence is available. Therefore, the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here. …….this list. All possible effort has gone into avoiding duplicate entries and discerning the status of equipment between captured or abandoned. Many of the entries listed as 'abandoned' will likely end up captured or destroyed. Similarly, some of the captured equipment might be destroyed When the origin of a piece of equipment can't be established, it is not included in the list. The Soviet flag is used when the equipment in question was produced prior to 1991. This list is constantly updated as additional footage becomes available.

Russia – 8560, of which: destroyed: 5352, damaged: 218, abandoned: 303, captured: 2687

Tanks (1600, of which destroyed: 937, damaged: 72, abandoned: 60, captured: 531)

Where are they going to get cheap western kit to make new ones or repair stuff in the near scrap pile? They can't make the expensive bits themselves. Like Legion 4 states war is no longer the preserve of poorly trained ill equipped infantry on their own. There army is crap because they can't keep an army that size on a UK sized GDP. We can't and we have direct access to western kit.

UshCha +1 …

Lack Of Good Analyses Contributes To The Decline Of The 'West'

link

Armand

Russian MOD casualty estimates are so much BS. The Ukrainian military should have ceased to exist some time ago – so how come Wagner and Co aren't storming across central Ukraine? And its not because of the all the Polish NATO soldiers there!

You can also see the degradation in Russian equipment in there cruise missile and drone 'barrages' getting smaller over time and there doesn't appear to be any significant reduction Ukraine's ability to intercept – if anything it seems to be getting better (though that may well be just a function of the fall off in numbers and increasing use of older systems and systems in secondary roles more susceptible to interception).

I'd also make the point while a number of European countries may well have procurement issues of all kinds by and large the armies are professional and have shown considerable ability to 'make do' over previous decades. To the point with the British Army it may actually be a problem. At least anecdotally Ukraine seems to making progress in fixing its initial problems over the last 10-months. Russia just seems to adapted around its ones…

If Russia says it … it's most likely a lie.

It has been seven and half months since I posted this, and the general impression that I have has not really changed.

Russian military seems not to have done anything particularly novel since then. They just about managed to have capture the town of Bakmuth (which the Ukrainians now seem to be attempting to retake), but otherwise they have been more or less tied up on ground defending their gains and launching the odd inconclusive attack to maintain some pressure on the front line. No signs of any grand strategy in sight, just more of the "same old". Missile and drone strikes keep on being carried out across Ukraine, but again the wanton selection of targets seems to speak more of frustration than some grand military plan.

Ukrainian military success has also been limited, though they have occasionally managed to hit "prestige targets" in depth, such as Kerch bridge and Black Sea fleet ships, that can upset the Kremlin leadership. Meanwhile, another hit to the Kremlin prestige came from the inside, in the form of the brief and confusing Wagner mutiny in late June.

Essential, it still seems to me that the Russian military is stuck in Ukraine with no real plan, while the Kremlin leadership wants to continue the conflict in an effort to maintain perceived prestige.

Agree….

I am now thinking the plan is to hang on through 2024 and then look for a deal, see if the US pulls back.

Putin will continue to take losses until he at least gets to hold on to the Donbas & Crimea. Again as long as the US drags its feet not giving everything the Ukrainian needs to push the Russians out of their territory. The death and destruction will continue. The Russians don't care how many losses they take.

Seems the US plan is to limit support for the Ukraine so eventually there has to be a brokered peace. Which at this point the Ukraine won't agree to. As long as the Russians hold any of their country.

Letting Putin keep those Ukrainian lands will only set up a future attack by Russia to take the entire nation. Once the Russians rearm, refit, find more bodies, tanks, etc. which may take years. E.g. 2014, 2022, then ?

NATO downsized so much they can't make up for the US shortfalls of the equipment … But it takes very strong leadership to be a war time commander. Many in those very high places currently to make those decisions, again, don't have the right stuff … IMO that gets clearer every day.

Letting Putin keep those Ukrainian lands will only set up a future attack by Russia to take the entire nation.

This may actually be Russia's one and only shot. The country has demographic and educational problems – apparently Putin's Russia lacks significant post-schooling technical training. The casualties from the current war and diaspora the partial mobilisation kicked off won't help. Post the current conflict its highly likely that Russia's economic and manufacturing problems will cripple rearmament. Assuming there is no significant change in the governance of Russia I'd also argue that its likely to continue to concentrate on easily bilk-able prestige projects rather than a competent military.

Yes, again he invaded in 2014, 2022 and if Russia holds those parts of Ukraine, they may try again in a few years. If for only that reason, the US & NATO must support Ukraine. To hand Putin a clear defeat. Again, the USA is dragging its feet and hoping for a brokered peace. Shortsighted at best, IMO …

I came to think a bit as to what strategically important objectives Russian military has gained, and I could think up the following.

1.) Capturing the water channel to Crimea

Running from the reservoir above the Kakhovka dam, this channel was designed to bring water to the Crimean agriculture. It was closed by Ukraine after the Crimean occupation in 2014, but was captured in the early phases of the 2022 invasion.

However, with the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in summer 2023, there is no longer a reservoir to feed this channel, so it is probably rather useless for the time being, unless the dam gets rebuilt at some point in distance future.

2.) Land bridge to Crimea

In summer 2022 the whole northern coast of Azov sea was under Russian control, allowing for overland transit to Crimea from mainland Russia. This land bridge is something that the Ukrainians would like to cut, and the Russian military has spent significant resources in mmining, fortifying and defending this area.

On the other hand, the prestigious and strategically important Kerch bridge, built after the 2014 Crimean occupation, which was previously safe has come under Ukrainian attacks, and will remain vulnerable as long as the hostilities continue.

However, these are both goals that were achieved in the early phases of the invasion. Since the summer 2022, there have been no strategic gains by Russia, while the blows to the prestige have kept on cumulating gradually.

Yes, with Russia gaining/holding those pieces of territory no matter what happens they can claim victory.

One problem with prestige becoming dominant aspect of decision making is that it can become difficult to formulate an easy exit, as the decision makers may insist on that any perceived prestige lost so far is regained before making an exit.

This may then result in assets thrown at further operations of questionable utility (or maybe futility), with the risk that still more perceived prestige will be lost if those operations fail.

If "prestige" is the primary reason for making decisions … it will be a long war … And many more dead.

Very much OT (if a little depressing in places)
YouTube link

Looks like another recent attempt by Russia to improve its prestige – Special Moonlanding Operation Luna 25 – was not fully succesful. While the unit actually ended in the Moon, the landing did not go as planned and the unit was destroyed.

While I do not particularly care how this affects Russia's prestige, the mission could have provided scientifically interesting information had it been succesful.

Doh ! We blew up the moon komrade ! 🚀🌑💥💥💥💥💥💥💥

You cannot land on the moon using washing machine parts in your space craft.

Those parts were made in China …

According to the commentary I have seen, the moon project was hampered by the politicial leadership in two ways:

1.) applying pressure to have the launch done during the third quarter of 2023 (prestige issue?)
2.) selecting a policy that resulted in the European Space Agency pulling off from cooperation and trade sanctions making many high tech components unavailable to Russia

Meanwhile, according to news, the Indian moon project has completed a succesful landing (unlike its predecessor in 2019). There is also a BRICS meeting taking place right now in South Africa, but Putin won't be able to celebrate the achievements of the Indian space programme there with PM Modi, due to the ICC arrest warrant that would be facing him if he set his foot in the country.

I've heard a theory that the luna 25 probe was really just a russian tank turret that flew a bit higher than usual. Who knows?
Don't believe anything till the kremlin denies it…..

+1 Tgunner – nailed it!

Seems that the recent crash landing by Prigozhin might draw attention away from the Luna-25 crash landing. Not that it really adds to the preceived national prestige, though.

I don't think we have much to worry about the Moon becoming a Russian FOB/Launch site, etc.

Interesting development is that Ukraine seems to be gradually coming more and more capable of striking at remote targets behind the front lines, including ships of Black Sea fleet and distant military airfields. Losing an aircraft here and there every now and then might not be significant losses as such, but over extended times those losses will accumulate.

The latest strikes at the somewhat distant Pskov airfield were a hit at something of a prestige target. That area is home to an airlanding division and air transport regiment, as well as some Spetznatz and GRU (military intelligence) assets. And now a number of large IL-76 aircraft have been hit there. Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman has already released public statements promising revenge for these strikes…

But isn't this why we have not given Ukraine more weapons? If they hit Moscow, does the risk of nuclear response increase?

I am not sure, asking your opinion. I do not agree with the piecemeal support we seem to be giving Ukraine in the field against the Russian military. But civilian strikes often strengthen resolve, I think. What do they gain?

Civilian strikes allow them to show they are striking back at Russians like Russia is striking at Ukraine.

Attritimg aircraft is of much more direct military benefit. Especially if those planes have military pilots in them at the time.

Nukes are a very risky thing for Putin. In several ways imo. It's an order that risks refusal or massive response.

Yes, destroying enemy aircraft is a SOP in war.

Putin threat of using [Tac]Nukes is really remote. Of course it is to be taken into consideration.

Again Ukraine is fighting for its life. Would be better if the USA's top leadership was not dragging it's feet, as I have said before. But I think the US leadership still wants a "brokered" peace. Leaving Putin claiming victory and leaving the Ukraine another war to fight. Like Patton said, "The politicians always leave us another war to fight.

Russia invaded the Ukraine twice now. 2014 and 18 months ago. So how long with it be before Russia invades again after a brokered peace ? 5, 10, etc. years from then ?

It does feel like foot dragging, but there are surely geopolitical factors involved, whether we might agree with them or not. I think Putin will hold on to try and score a deal after the US election.

Great point, Legion. Deals with dictators tend to not hold up.

Geopolitical factors … It is a NATO op … The US should have the assets to let the Ukraine drive the Russians off their lands. And NATO has given a lot in some cases all they could. The Russians have been a threat to the West for decades. I was in the US Army during the Cold War. We spent most of our time training to fight the USSR/WP if they crossed the IGB. We have a chance here to really clip their wings. They have already lost 50% of their forces. If we give them all they need they will continue to attrite the Russians.

The Ukrainians are not the South Vietnamese or the ANA/ANP. These guys fight and win. If the Russians lose in the Ukraine it will send a signal to Xi/CCP. And again if Russia manages to hold the areas of the Ukraine they have now. And the war ends in a brokered peace. Putin claims victory and in turn Xi sees it as a win for the CCP. With Taiwan being in more danger.

All true. I thought this spring would be it, but the military help from us is just dribbling down the pipeline. As I keep saying, we must be holding back for some reason,but I don't get it. The best way to end this war is to knock out Putin's army as quick as possible.

As for wasting perfectly good drones by flying them into office blocks in Moscow, I do not consider it a good idea. However, when it comes to prestige targets in Russia, Moscow ranks pretty high in the list. So any strikes there tend to make the political and military leadership rather concerned, and will probably lead to a lot of air defense assets being tied around the capital, leaving less to defend important military targets like airfields.

Those aircraft sitting out in the open in the airfields tend to be quite vulnerable targets, especially if they are properly fuelled for readiness. Looking at the satellite images, the aircraft seem to be moderately spaced out, preventing fire spreading from one aircraft to another, but otherwise protection is limited – and it would take a lot of work to build them drone-proof hangars. And considering the range of Ukrainian drones and the number of military targets in western Russia, protecting them all requires a fair amount of air defense assets.

In principle, it should be easy to fly all the working aircraft to more remote locations – such as Murmansk region or to western Siberia (assuming sufficient space in the airfields) – where they would be out of the reach of the Ukrainian drones for the time being. However, this would also be quite a blow to the prestige of the Russian air force (having to do so in the face of Ukrainian drones), and would make it harder for it to participate in launching cruise missiles against targets in Ukraine. Never mind generally reducing the readiness of the air force in the Russian heartland.

As for the Kremlin and Russian foreign ministry spokespersons, I do not tend to take them too seriously, but whenever Ukrainian forces manage to pull a surprise operation like this, they start making threats about how there will be revenge and payback coming for the strike. And sometimes even the senior political leadership joins their chorus. That kind of talk is indicative of a sense of insulted honour and prestige, rather than of any strategic plan to work out the problematic issues. Of course what is spoken out in public does not tell everything about what is going on behind the scenes, but if the Russian operations will become dominated by tit-for-tat replies to Ukrainian strikes (and the Ukrainians have managed to obtain a bit of initiative here), then they will just keep themselves stuck in a quagmire of their own making.

All true. I thought this spring would be it, but the military help from us is just dribbling down the pipeline. As I keep saying, we must be holding back for some reason,but I don't get it. The best way to end this war is to knock out Putin's army as quick as possible.

I agree, but as long as the USA sends equipment piecemeal the Ukraine has to fight as they are. Slow, steady, measured calculated, etc. attacks. Which seems to work for them … but it just takes longer and their inevitable losses.

I may be wrong but as I said I believe the US top leadership wants a brokered peace. Still have a level of fear/concern as Putin has nukes. But I think it is a very long shot Putin would even use Tac Nucs …

Griefbringer +1 I generally do agree with much of what you posted. But I think drones attacking Russia proper has a bit of use if at least for Ukraine morale.

And yes, no one really can believe anything the Russians say, etc.

I think an attempt to draw out the war is the least likely explanation for the slow long drawn out delivery of materiel.
Just political friction/inertia alone could well explain it.

Yes, politics is getting in the way of the Ukraine having a chance of "winning".

But I think drones attacking Russia proper has a bit of use if at least for Ukraine morale.

No doubt it does, though I would think that the effect would be strongest when hitting prestigious military targets, such as the Pskov airport.

Flying a drone into an office block in Moscow during night might have less of an effect in Ukrainian morale, especially after the first time.

Looking at the recent events, it seems that the Russian forces are trying more of the "same old", with the odd missile and drone strikes across Ukraine, while the battle for Avdiivka tends to bring to mind the Bakhmut operation last year. Meanwhile, the Russian industry is trying to boost its production of the war material, so that the effort will be maintained in the long term.

It has been almost two years since the start of the "special military operation", and it seems that maintaining the operation has become an end on its own, regardless of whether it serves any strategic value. Granted, it provides an added excuse for the Kremlin administration to oppress anything resembling opposition, as these can be claimed to be "undermining the military effort". This might bring to mind certain shades of Orwell's 1984, where a continual military conflict was considered necessary to maintain the oppressive, totalitarian regime.

In the meantime, the Ukrainian military is able to carry out small scale long range attacks against prestige targets deep into Russian (held) territory, including Black Sea Fleet assets, airfields, aircraft, air defense missile systems and so on. Some of these attacks have even reached the vicinity of St. Petersburg.