The Russian gas pipelines were just destroyed; meaning that for Europe, yielding to Putin's energy blackmail is not even an option anymore, he has nothing to offer now. They will support Ukraine as they find other energy partners. Italy just secured a source from N. Africa. The US will now become a major energy supplier to Europe, costing the Russians long term. The Russian economy is flailing and they cannot even replace parts required to keep their vehicles running.
Most importantly on a global scale, the illusion that they are a near US military peer has been destroyed. Sweden and Finland shrugged at Russian threats and joined NATO. Russia has been exposed as a weak, poorly led military that would get steam rolled by Europe even without US boots on the ground. The united states would obliterate them. The only card they have is nukes, besides that they are weak. Russia likely becomes a vassal state to China.
If this is Russia winning then yes, you are correct.
Alternate take: Russia is behaving so irrationally and dangerously, their actions persuaded the Swedes to break two centuries of neutrality to cozy up with a defensive pact. They could have joined NATO in the 90s when the threat was nil, but instead they maintained their neutrality until things got dicey.
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-War-Against-Sweden-Submarine/d...
What the battlefield figures point to is that while Russia can hold a line, it's using much more ammo to do it, and this strains their supply logistics, which are further pressured by long-range missle systems. Adding more troops when you're already supply-constrained means falling back on a Soviet-era strategy of throwing bodies at every problem and, most likely, letting some freeze to death stranded without even entering combat.
However, modern Russia doesn't have the demographics necessary to hold out in a meatgrinder. The Red Army was able to do that successfully because they were drawing from a younger and more agrarian population that could be "born to die". As soon as your draft starts eating into older urbanites with skills, careers, and families, unrest is going to get out of control and put national sovereignty at threat.
There's a reason why modern armies have moved towards a professionalized approach since the mid-20th century: it's a lower-footprint method that sustains high tech industries, and therefore is easier to gain support for. The entire narrative changed when it stopped being a "special military operation" and they announced mobilization: there's no more illusion of it being a professional war.
The West has near-infinite appetite to provide arms to the Ukraine. Why?
- the military industrial complex gets profit - Putin is a ghoul and disliked throughout all levels of Western governments - there is strong popular support for Ukraine - strategically a strong buffer state of Ukraine neutralizes Russia long term - once Ukraine wins, Belarus will be surrounded by NATO or just-as-good-as-NATO nations, and Lukashenko will be toppled, and a NATO friendly government installed. So that's not just Ukraine as a buffer state, that is the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine. Westernized, trained, militarily capable, integrated with NATO.
The conscripts are useless, have no equipment, and are being delivered to the front for WINTER. They won't have winter equipment. They won't be supplied. Existing forces aren't being supplied. This will be a humanitarian disaster. Supply lines? Russia won't supply them, and that which is sent will be plundered or redirected.
The elite of Russia's armed forces have already been gutted and defeated.
Theses strategic weapons... are they like Russia's air force? What heavy weaponry? The heavy weapons that were sent are destroyed, the artillery is being neutralized by superior HIMARS. Russia knows each escalation of weaponry results in better arms being sent to Ukraine, and a more militarily capable Ukraine in the long run.
Why are you portraying the South as a permanent victory? Were you portraying the North as a permanent victory as well a month ago? Russia's southern victory is temporary. Russia lost the north because they sent all their forces to the South... where 20,000 soldiers reportedly were abandoned or trapped across a river.
And... does Putin have cancer? He does appear increasing ill.
While winter will slow a counterattack, likely it will further devastate Russian morale.
In WWII, the Russian conscripts were trapped between Russian machine guns if they retreated, or annihilation by the Germans. The Ukrainians will accept them as POWs, and provide aid. This is a key difference. What percentage of conscripts will simply surrender as soon as possible?
Russia's soft touch is debatable: is it restraint, or a non-functioning military? So far it appears to be non-functional.
If Russia keeps saber-rattling on nukes, and the west views Ukraine as a functional state, NATO can provide Ukraine with nukes. But I suspect Putin will be toppled if he continues to threaten nuclear armageddon.
Russia isn't losing the war; they have a temporary setback. They have completely won the south but only have ~80k troops total in the country which limits their ability to organizationally maneuver and defensively hold territory simultaneously in the North. The HIMARS introductions has damaged Russia's logistical ability to resupply the large number of arty rounds needed to prosecute an arty heavy war.
Some of the Russian mobilization impacts those with previous military experience, and their reserve forces.
Remember, until this recent collapse in the North, they were rototilling the Ukrainian Army into the ground with Arty each day.
300k conscripts gives them the defensive force they need to hold space, freeing up their Army and Wagner to handle the offensive side of the campaigns.
With new Iranian drones entering the fray, and North Korea potentially entering the campaign to gain combat experience, this is likely to continue a great deal. Because North Korea uses Russian style artillery tactics, they are an instant fold-in to Russia's conventional arty dominant war.
The real question from a combat perspective is whether or not the mobilization of forces will enable the Russian supply lines to better hold.
The biggest gamechanger still on the table is that we haven't seen yet the introduction of true strategic (non-nuclear) weaponry on the Russian side, or, the targetting of Ukrainian infrastructure. The latter is likely to happen soon because the West is exploiting the Russian's soft touch towards seizing Ukrainian territory by sending a nonstop stream of heavy weaponry and resupply.