[gocard14]

I don't have a suggestion.  I just would like our erudite and well informed participants on this board to suggest a plausible end-game strategy.

Since the erudite and well informed participants haven't stepped up, I will take a try at it. First, it has to be said that nothing in this war is certain. Things that are just "impossible" have already happened, and will continue to do so. That is one thing that makes war so dangerous, this one in particular. Both Russia and Ukraine have the possibility of their governments collapsing without warning. There are lots of political and social forces that we don't understand in play, and as history shows, stressed societies can behave unpredictably. The Russian military could also collapse because of poor morale and tensions within the leadership. The Ukrainian army could fragment in a political upheaval, but it would keep fighting as long as it physically could.

Assuming these events don't happen, you are correct. It is abundantly clear Ukraine cannot continue this war indefinitely. Their economy is a wreck, and with the assault on the electric grid things will just get worse. Eventually the point will be reached they just can't continue. Their choices are so starkly bad however that they will continue the fight long after everybody else has written them off. So, one possible outcome is that Russia and Ukraine continue to pound each other until Ukraine finally physically can't go on. This is just about everybody's worst case outcome. How long would that take? I figure about 18 to 24 months, max. However, long before that day comes people will start reading the handwriting on the wall, stop supporting Ukraine, and urge a "political" settlement, which is of course actually impossible but looks good on paper. Ukraine knows all this, and is going to do all in their power to avoid this situation. Russia OTOH will not be confronted with the inability to continue. Despite sanctions and the loss of the major gas and oil markets, they can go on with the war. The population may be miserable, hungry, and dispirited, but they can continue as long as their politicians force them to do so.

The Ukraine knows they aren't going to bring Russia to it's knees by invading it. Ukraine also know that Russia could be driven out of all the occupied territory in the Donbas and still keep fighting. What I THINK the Ukraine intends is to take back Crimea and cut Russia's free access to the Sea of Azov. This is a good strategy for three reasons. First, Ukraine found out how much losing free access to the Sea of Azov cost them when Russia took Crimea in 2014. It was both a political and a commercial disaster. Ukraine needs it back to allow ports like Mariupol and Berdyans'k to engage in cabotage and international shipping. They can deny Russia the ability to safely export and import through the strait and the shoe will be on the other foot. This is one of the few costs Ukraine can actually impose on Russia, and it is a significant one.

Second, the military benefit to taking Crimea is large and it is probably easier than taking ground in the Donbas. The threat to Ukraine's southern coast would be removed. The Black Sea fleet would lose the shipyard and all the associated facilities. Ukraine would gain them. The Black Sea fleet and all the coastal defense units would have to retreat to Novorossiysk. The Crimea is supplied only by one bridge and one GLOC along the Sea of Azov. OTOH the Donbas has lots of GLOCs and abuts the Russian border. Ukraine can't cut off Donbas but they can cut off Crimea in a straightforward manner. The know it, and Russia knows it. Russia's actions show they are concerned about that and have committed lots of troops to defend Crimea that right now are doing nothing. For Russia, retaining Crimea is a strategic and political necessity as it also is for Ukraine. Geography favors Ukraine.

Third, and most importantly, the loss of Crimea would be a political disaster for the current Russian leadership, i.e. Putin. Russians could definitely say they are now much worse off on every front than they were before the war. This situation could bring about regime change, and it is about the only thing bad enough to do so IMO. Ukraine knows that Putin will keep fighting if he is still in power. They need to get him out. This would probably do it. The government and army wouldn't implode. They would just get a new leader. The question is, would the new leadership end the war? Lots of reasons to fear they wouldn't. At that point NATO may need to agree to lift sanctions if Russia stops the war, even though we really want to force Russia to take responsibility for their actions. This is IMHO the best possible outcome Ukraine can hope for. They get all their territory back, but Russia is still there. Unfortunately, if the new leadership behaves like the old and continues, Ukraine is still in a tough spot. I don't know what to do then.

This all sounds reasonable to me, but one variable it doesn't really address is the potential for increased US support.  If stalemate continues and the situation above comes to pass, I wouldn't be surprised (and would hope to see) Biden double down on long term support. We are just now seeing more articles about the (very partial) mobilization of US industry to ramp up artillery shell production. We could and should start the major process training Ukranians and their logistics corp/engineers on Abrams and F16s, so they can be brought to the front in volume. Seized Russian assets could be used to prop up the Ukrainian economy, and we could consider even more drastic measures like you've described in terms of an effective oil embargo or seizure of oil tankers.

[gocard14]

I don't have a suggestion.  I just would like our erudite and well informed participants on this board to suggest a plausible end-game strategy.

Since the erudite and well informed participants haven't stepped up, I will take a try at it. First, it has to be said that nothing in this war is certain. Things that are just "impossible" have already happened, and will continue to do so. That is one thing that makes war so dangerous, this one in particular. Both Russia and Ukraine have the possibility of their governments collapsing without warning. There are lots of political and social forces that we don't understand in play, and as history shows, stressed societies can behave unpredictably. The Russian military could also collapse because of poor morale and tensions within the leadership. The Ukrainian army could fragment in a political upheaval, but it would keep fighting as long as it physically could.

Assuming these events don't happen, you are correct. It is abundantly clear Ukraine cannot continue this war indefinitely. Their economy is a wreck, and with the assault on the electric grid things will just get worse. Eventually the point will be reached they just can't continue. Their choices are so starkly bad however that they will continue the fight long after everybody else has written them off. So, one possible outcome is that Russia and Ukraine continue to pound each other until Ukraine finally physically can't go on. This is just about everybody's worst case outcome. How long would that take? I figure about 18 to 24 months, max. However, long before that day comes people will start reading the handwriting on the wall, stop supporting Ukraine, and urge a "political" settlement, which is of course actually impossible but looks good on paper. Ukraine knows all this, and is going to do all in their power to avoid this situation. Russia OTOH will not be confronted with the inability to continue. Despite sanctions and the loss of the major gas and oil markets, they can go on with the war. The population may be miserable, hungry, and dispirited, but they can continue as long as their politicians force them to do so.

The Ukraine knows they aren't going to bring Russia to it's knees by invading it. Ukraine also know that Russia could be driven out of all the occupied territory in the Donbas and still keep fighting. What I THINK the Ukraine intends is to take back Crimea and cut Russia's free access to the Sea of Azov. This is a good strategy for three reasons. First, Ukraine found out how much losing free access to the Sea of Azov cost them when Russia took Crimea in 2014. It was both a political and a commercial disaster. Ukraine needs it back to allow ports like Mariupol and Berdyans'k to engage in cabotage and international shipping. They can deny Russia the ability to safely export and import through the strait and the shoe will be on the other foot. This is one of the few costs Ukraine can actually impose on Russia, and it is a significant one.

Second, the military benefit to taking Crimea is large and it is probably easier than taking ground in the Donbas. The threat to Ukraine's southern coast would be removed. The Black Sea fleet would lose the shipyard and all the associated facilities. Ukraine would gain them. The Black Sea fleet and all the coastal defense units would have to retreat to Novorossiysk. The Crimea is supplied only by one bridge and one GLOC along the Sea of Azov. OTOH the Donbas has lots of GLOCs and abuts the Russian border. Ukraine can't cut off Donbas but they can cut off Crimea in a straightforward manner. The know it, and Russia knows it. Russia's actions show they are concerned about that and have committed lots of troops to defend Crimea that right now are doing nothing. For Russia, retaining Crimea is a strategic and political necessity as it also is for Ukraine. Geography favors Ukraine.

Third, and most importantly, the loss of Crimea would be a political disaster for the current Russian leadership, i.e. Putin. Russians could definitely say they are now much worse off on every front than they were before the war. This situation could bring about regime change, and it is about the only thing bad enough to do so IMO. Ukraine knows that Putin will keep fighting if he is still in power. They need to get him out. This would probably do it. The government and army wouldn't implode. They would just get a new leader. The question is, would the new leadership end the war? Lots of reasons to fear they wouldn't. At that point NATO may need to agree to lift sanctions if Russia stops the war, even though we really want to force Russia to take responsibility for their actions. This is IMHO the best possible outcome Ukraine can hope for. They get all their territory back, but Russia is still there. Unfortunately, if the new leadership behaves like the old and continues, Ukraine is still in a tough spot. I don't know what to do then.

This all sounds reasonable to me, but one variable it doesn't really address is the potential for increased US support.  If stalemate continues and the situation above comes to pass, I wouldn't be surprised (and would hope to see) Biden double down on long term support. We are just now seeing more articles about the (very partial) mobilization of US industry to ramp up artillery shell production. We could and should start the major process training Ukranians and their logistics corp/engineers on Abrams and F16s, so they can be brought to the front in volume. Seized Russian assets could be used to prop up the Ukrainian economy, and we could consider even more drastic measures like you've described in terms of an effective oil embargo or seizure of oil tankers.