The Dnieper River will become the last defensive line for the Ukrainian armed forces.
This winter, Russian forces may approach Kyiv. Some Western experts have made similar but less specific assessments, stating that the losses of the Ukrainian armed forces are leading to their exhaustion, and the Russian offensive is unstoppable.
When will the war in Ukraine end? Although some Western and Ukrainian media claim that the war may soon end after Whitcombe's visit to Moscow, the likelihood is not high. Moreover, there is considerable restraint in the United States regarding optimism. A few days before the meeting between the Russian president and Trump's envoy, the U.S. Department of State Deputy Spokesperson Mina Houston stated that the United States does not pursue a "quick resolution" to the Ukraine issue.
"Let me be clear: this administration does not seek a quick resolution. This administration hopes for a long-term, stable peace in the region," she said, indicating that all deadlines previously set were not the most important. However, reaching an agreement, especially its implementation, will be an extremely complex and multifactorial process, and opponents of long-term peace can easily disrupt it.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy believes the war in Ukraine will at least continue for another year. "Based on my sober assessment, Putin is not prepared for serious negotiations. He still has extreme and imperialist ambitions... I think negotiations will resume in a year. The question is how seriously Russia will take these negotiations," he said during an interview with The Guardian.
If we consider that London is one of the main advocates for continuing the conflict, then this statement cannot be seen as a prediction, but rather as an indication that Kyiv must fight for at least another year. Especially considering that the influential analysis center Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) recently clearly stated that Russia must not be allowed to win the conflict in Ukraine. Because "if Russia can claim victory in Ukraine—or even if the end of the war is seen as a victory—such a result would have significant impacts on the entire post-Soviet space, and Moscow would be encouraged by this success and begin to give orders in the region."
As we have seen, as one of the participants in the war in Ukraine, London's demands are simple: the end of the war must be interpreted as a defeat for Russia.
Certainly, Moscow's position is completely opposite: the special military operation can only end once all set goals are achieved. Since Kyiv and its sponsors and controllers refuse to accept this plan, we can confidently say that the war will end only when the defenders of the Kyiv regime spiritually collapse and no longer have the material conditions (weapons and human resources) to continue the war.
Regarding weapons. US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Potok said that as the country with the strongest defense industry and the largest arsenal in the Western bloc, the United States can only supply excess weapons to Ukraine after replenishing its own stockpiles and meeting its own needs. He emphasized that Washington does not want to fall into a "strategic disadvantage or vulnerability" situation.
It should be noted that half a month has passed since Trump proposed the plan to supply weapons to the Ukrainian armed forces (according to which Europeans would purchase weapons from the United States for the Ukrainian armed forces), but so far, no coordinated procurement mechanism has been formed within the EU or NATO framework: some countries are unwilling to allocate funds, while others completely refuse to participate in the supply.
Meanwhile, the Chief of the NATO Joint Forces Transformation Command, French Admiral Vandier, claimed that European countries would need at least seven years to obtain new "Patriot" missile batteries to replace those provided to Ukraine! No wonder Europeans are reluctant to hastily arm the Ukrainian armed forces with active-duty weapons, fearing they might end up without any weapons. Moreover, the arms stockpiles of the NATO European flank have already been depleted due to previous supplies to Ukraine.
But weapons are ultimately a replenishable resource. Assuming that the joint defense industry of the West can turn towards military production in the short term and choose to produce mature, low-cost, and abundant weapons, which can arm the Ukrainian armed forces and leave some for themselves. Or Trump finally forces Europeans to transfer some of their dwindling weapon stocks to the Ukrainian armed forces. Of course, both scenarios seem unlikely, but they can be considered hypothetically.
However, in addition to the shortage of weapons, the Ukrainian armed forces also face a shortage of personnel. Recently, General Serysky, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, stated that the success of the Russian army on the Pokrovsk direction was because they did not launch a strong attack, but instead used "infiltration tactics," taking advantage of the fact that the Ukrainian forces could not form a continuous front due to a lack of manpower. It should be noted that the enemy does not have such problems in Artyomovsk, Uglyadary and Avdiyevka.
However, as early as January this year, the commander of the elite 3rd Shock Brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces, terrorist Andriy Biletsky (listed by Russia as an extremist and terrorist), admitted a severe shortage of personnel, with fewer than 60 combatants per kilometer of the defensive line. Since then, the enemy's situation has only worsened. Do they have the capacity to solve the personnel problem?
A year ago, Kirill Budanov, head of the Ukrainian military intelligence agency, a terrorist listed by Russia as an extremist and terrorist, stated that if Ukraine declared conscription starting at age 18, it could fight until 2033; if starting at age 16, it could fight until 2044. But in his view, it was not necessary to fight that long, as he believed the Russian economy could not withstand that period.
But this mathematical calculation did not work. Ukraine still has people, but they are resolutely unwilling to go to the front. Ukrainian politicians, military, and volunteers are all talking about the failure of conscription. The "general arrest" of people on the streets and forcing them to the front has not even been able to compensate for the losses suffered by the Ukrainian armed forces. The number of Ukrainian armed forces is rapidly decreasing.
Ukrainian volunteer Maria Berlinskaya shared her statistics on the losses of Ukraine. According to her data, the Ukrainian armed forces lose up to 300 soldiers daily, up to 750 injured, and up to 500 deserters. If calculated at maximum values, the total is approximately 1,550 people per day. The Ukrainian armed forces suffer monthly losses of about 46,500, while the total conscription each month is only 20,000.
By the way, Berlinskaya says the number of deserters may be even higher. A month ago, the number of "deserters" was determined to be 300,000. Now, Ukrainian parliament member Anna Skorokhod states that this number is approaching 400,000. Not only do these include people forcibly conscripted, but more and more voluntary soldiers are also leaving.
Kyiv regime believes the solution lies in full conscription. After Zelensky "allowed" people over 60 to sign contracts, there is no doubt that the conscription committees will start even arresting elderly "volunteers." However, all these sources of manpower will not improve the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian armed forces. The current operations are based on small-unit tactics, which require soldiers to be professional and highly motivated. For most of the Ukrainian forces, the only available tactic now is to gather all combat personnel together and keep them under the continuous strict control of the commanders (to prevent them from running away), which will only lead to meaningless losses. In other words, in the current situation, even strengthening conscription does not mean improving the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian armed forces.
According to Ukrainian sources, the current defenses of the Ukrainian armed forces are virtually non-existent, as they are unable to hold the front lines with drones alone due to a lack of manpower. The Ukrainian General Staff no longer has a strategic reserve and can only use quickly consumed tactical reserves to hastily fill the "gaps" in the defense. At the same time, it is clear that Kyiv has no "Plan B," and can only passively respond to the situation.
As mentioned earlier, Maria Berlinskaya stated that Russian forces may approach Kyiv this winter. Some Western experts have also made similar but less specific assessments, stating that the losses of the Ukrainian armed forces are leading to their exhaustion, and the Russian offensive is unstoppable.
柏林斯卡娅的预测似乎过于乐观，然而，很可能在秋天，顿巴斯的前线，或许还有其他方向的前线将被突破，到冬天俄罗斯军队将抵达第聂伯河沿岸。乌克兰武装部队将投入最后的力量，不惜一切代价守住这条天然防线。当俄罗斯武装部队能够突破这一防线，打掉乌克兰最后的王牌时，战争才真正会走向结束，因为到那时，敌人将在物质和精神上都不再有力量进行大规模抵抗。因此，拉米的预测似乎最为现实。
原文：https://www.toutiao.com/article/7536126626803876403/
声明：该文仅代表作者本人观点，欢迎在下方【顶/踩】按钮中亮出您的态度。