[Goose]

I've said similar before, but the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan and the US pulled out of Vietnam, even though they were much larger countries with much bigger economies. This was the result of exhaustion.

IMO it was by no means exhaustion. Russia could have, for certain, continued to fight in Afghanistan. They left because they realized that to "win" would require occupying the country with an iron fist indefinitely. It wasn't worth it.

The US left Vietnam not because we could no longer fight there but because it was politically untenable to do so. To "win" was just too heavy a lift at that point.

Exhaustion is when you simply can't fight any more, even if you want to. That was Germany's state at the end of WW I. In the past, many European wars ended not because one side couldn't continue but rather because they decided it wasn't worth it. The risk/reward ratio wasn't favorable. This state is obviously easier to achieve, because you don't have to totally destroy your opponent's ability to make war. The problem is that the other side may be real slow to recognize it isn't worth it. Switzerland for hundreds of years, and even today relies on the fact they can make it so expensive to defeat it just isn't worth it. Unfortunately for them, Napoleon didn't get the memo.

Even if Ukraine succeeds in retaking Crimea, what is to stop Putin from continuing to prosecute the war? He would still have the same advantages as a much larger country that you pointed out. If Ukraine retakes Crimea but Russia is unable to counter, or obtain or manufacture enough weaponry or draft enough soldiers to change the situation on the battlefield, I think this would be considered by the author to be a victory by exhaustion for Ukraine, not a victory through tactical or strategic acumen in the deployment of combined arms maneuver, so I'm not sure there is much tension in what the author is proposing and the hopeful end state in your post.

I guess the place I differ with this conclusion is that it really makes little difference whether Ukraine accomplishes the strategic objectives of breaking the land bridge and taking back Crimea via a coup de main through tactical acumen or a methodical, set piece battle. Obviously, Ukraine prefers the latter, and for good reason given their ORBAT.  As you correctly point out, even if Ukraine accomplishes these goals, Russia is not "exhausted". 

They can keep fighting, just as they could have in Afghanistan. However, they will have suffered several serious losses and will have to fight at a tactical disadvantage. Ukraine won't have to defend their entire land mass because Russia does not have and cannot create an amphibious landing threat. Ukraine can concentrate their forces in the north east, the Donbas. This much smaller line of contact equalizes the numbers game. Russia may have more troops but the front is only so wide. I think it is pretty clear that Ukraine can never force Russia to stop fighting. Russia can be driven totally out of Ukraine and keep lobbing Iranian drones into Ukraine essentially forever. They can't win that way, but they can still be a serious "problem".  Ukraine can't exhaust Russia, but hopefully they can create a Swiss situation where continuing the fight is recognized in Russia as counter-productive. You do hit upon the real crux of the issue. What happens if Russia continues to behave irrationally even in the face of these significant reverses?

Why this isn't "exhaustion" is that it requires the Russians to act rationally and quit an unwinnable war. At the end of WW I Germany had every intention of fighting on, even though they obviously couldn't win. What ended the war is that they simply couldn't continue. The population was starving, they were out of nitrates for explosives and their industry couldn't function because they had no workers. It wasn't a matter of them being "rational".

Ultimately the West must be prepared for this to be a long war and that it will end when one side is exhausted, not when Ukraine achieves some combination of the right advanced weapons systems and the right tactics to use them in some sort of rapid breakthrough or encirclement. This was the takeaway for me from the article and I think it's correct.

I do agree that the West must be prepared for this to be a long war. However, I think we have a difference in definition of "exhausted". One side or the other can cease hostilities not because they are incapable of continuing but rather because it becomes clear it isn't worth it. Exhaustion is when one side simply can no longer fight because they lack the resources to do so. IMO if one side can become "exhausted" in this war, it is Ukraine, not Russia. They may not lose the will to fight but their economic and infrastructure situation can become so degraded they simply can't continue. That isn't going to happen to Russia. We have to hope for Russia to make a rational decision that this war just isn't worth it, and anything Ukraine does to make it harder for Russia increases the probability of that. If Ukraine doesn't expect to dictate terms  in Red Square (and they don't), that is how this will end.

[Goose]

I've said similar before, but the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan and the US pulled out of Vietnam, even though they were much larger countries with much bigger economies. This was the result of exhaustion.

IMO it was by no means exhaustion. Russia could have, for certain, continued to fight in Afghanistan. They left because they realized that to "win" would require occupying the country with an iron fist indefinitely. It wasn't worth it.

The US left Vietnam not because we could no longer fight there but because it was politically untenable to do so. To "win" was just too heavy a lift at that point.

Exhaustion is when you simply can't fight any more, even if you want to. That was Germany's state at the end of WW I. In the past, many European wars ended not because one side couldn't continue but rather because they decided it wasn't worth it. The risk/reward ratio wasn't favorable. This state is obviously easier to achieve, because you don't have to totally destroy your opponent's ability to make war. The problem is that the other side may be real slow to recognize it isn't worth it. Switzerland for hundreds of years, and even today relies on the fact they can make it so expensive to defeat it just isn't worth it. Unfortunately for them, Napoleon didn't get the memo.

Even if Ukraine succeeds in retaking Crimea, what is to stop Putin from continuing to prosecute the war? He would still have the same advantages as a much larger country that you pointed out. If Ukraine retakes Crimea but Russia is unable to counter, or obtain or manufacture enough weaponry or draft enough soldiers to change the situation on the battlefield, I think this would be considered by the author to be a victory by exhaustion for Ukraine, not a victory through tactical or strategic acumen in the deployment of combined arms maneuver, so I'm not sure there is much tension in what the author is proposing and the hopeful end state in your post.

I guess the place I differ with this conclusion is that it really makes little difference whether Ukraine accomplishes the strategic objectives of breaking the land bridge and taking back Crimea via a coup de main through tactical acumen or a methodical, set piece battle. Obviously, Ukraine prefers the latter, and for good reason given their ORBAT.  As you correctly point out, even if Ukraine accomplishes these goals, Russia is not "exhausted". 

They can keep fighting, just as they could have in Afghanistan. However, they will have suffered several serious losses and will have to fight at a tactical disadvantage. Ukraine won't have to defend their entire land mass because Russia does not have and cannot create an amphibious landing threat. Ukraine can concentrate their forces in the north east, the Donbas. This much smaller line of contact equalizes the numbers game. Russia may have more troops but the front is only so wide. I think it is pretty clear that Ukraine can never force Russia to stop fighting. Russia can be driven totally out of Ukraine and keep lobbing Iranian drones into Ukraine essentially forever. They can't win that way, but they can still be a serious "problem".  Ukraine can't exhaust Russia, but hopefully they can create a Swiss situation where continuing the fight is recognized in Russia as counter-productive. You do hit upon the real crux of the issue. What happens if Russia continues to behave irrationally even in the face of these significant reverses?

Why this isn't "exhaustion" is that it requires the Russians to act rationally and quit an unwinnable war. At the end of WW I Germany had every intention of fighting on, even though they obviously couldn't win. What ended the war is that they simply couldn't continue. The population was starving, they were out of nitrates for explosives and their industry couldn't function because they had no workers. It wasn't a matter of them being "rational".

Ultimately the West must be prepared for this to be a long war and that it will end when one side is exhausted, not when Ukraine achieves some combination of the right advanced weapons systems and the right tactics to use them in some sort of rapid breakthrough or encirclement. This was the takeaway for me from the article and I think it's correct.

I do agree that the West must be prepared for this to be a long war. However, I think we have a difference in definition of "exhausted". One side or the other can cease hostilities not because they are incapable of continuing but rather because it becomes clear it isn't worth it. Exhaustion is when one side simply can no longer fight because they lack the resources to do so. IMO if one side can become "exhausted" in this war, it is Ukraine, not Russia. They may not lose the will to fight but their economic and infrastructure situation can become so degraded they simply can't continue. That isn't going to happen to Russia. We have to hope for Russia to make a rational decision that this war just isn't worth it, and anything Ukraine does to make it harder for Russia increases the probability of that. If Ukraine doesn't expect to dictate terms  in Red Square (and they don't), that is how this will end.