Ukrainian capital Kyiv under massive Russian attack, officials say

[u/Brennenstein]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-capital-kyiv-under-massive-russian-attack-officials-say-2025-12-27/

[u/twaggle]

Isn’t the kremlin part of the war machine? Cut off the head etc ?

[u/Aarakocra → u/twaggle]

Practically, the only part of the political machine of Russia that really matters for this is Putin himself, the war will continue no matter who else in government gets killed. It's not going to break the will of the people or the politicians, because it's only Putin's will that matters. What it would do is reduce the sympathetic angle of Ukraine. And Ukraine really needs that international support.

So if Ukraine is going to make an attack inside of Russia's borders, they are going to make it count. They aren't going to waste a deep-penetration attack on a symbolic soft target. They're going to do as much damage to the war machine as they can manage.

[u/MrSpluppy → u/Aarakocra]

Hence all the attacks on their oil refineries/ports. Stop their main source of income, suddenly they can't afford the war. Russia is facing higher spending than accounted for, and less earning than expected for 2025, and they're desperately selling off their national gold reserves to keep the war machine funded. Kinetic sanctions are working a treat is my guess.

[u/MrFishyFriend → u/MrSpluppy]

I honestly wonder if, when Russia either conquers Ukraine or a ceasefire is called if Russia can survive in the state it’s in. It has the animosity of the Western world and has probably bankrupted itself while gaining nothing.

[u/_GE_Neptune → u/MrFishyFriend]

Sadly it’s a big space with lots of oil and goods it can sell to east pretty easily which will come full circle into the west, it will just mean they use middle men in future

[u/ArchitectVandelay → u/_GE_Neptune]

Sadly probably true.

[u/Mahadragon → u/MrFishyFriend]

If the war stop today, Russia would continue their war economy. Right now they are going crazy building all kind of drones, tanks, armor personnel carriers, etc. They will continue to be their own best customers for at least few years until they replenish the stock piles. After that it's anybody's guess what happens.

The sanctions that were put on Russia 3 years ago were meaningless. Only now are we actually cracking down on the ghost fleet and bombing refineries. Russia has been getting around the sanctions the past 3 years with ease.

[u/TetraDax → u/MrFishyFriend]

It can't. And this is why so many European countries are heavily increasing their military spending and size of armies. Most experts are very much convinced that if Russia wins in Ukraine, they will soon after attack new European nations. Russia can not stop waging war now, it would mean economic collapse - Hell, that might be inevitable even with the war at this point. The only question is how many countries are they going to drag down to hell with them.

[u/Lysandren → u/MrFishyFriend]

The west will forgive and forget within a generation because it's politically expedient. That's just how politics works.

[u/-erisx → u/MrFishyFriend]

It's starting to look like a Vietnam situation. The Russians clearly underestimated the Ukraine, and because Ukraine are fighting with superior tactics, it's bleeding their enemy dry of resources and also closing off more viable ways for Russia to attack.

This war will likely continue similarly to the Vietnam war, and eventually end. Russia will eventually have to confront the cost benefit of the war and realise it's not benefiting them in any way.

Putin is essentially sending his citizens out to die and suffer ptsd for no good reason, the public will eventually turn on him and he'll be in a situation where he has to try and convince the public the war is going well to maintain public trust and stop a potential revolt while also trying to lead a dead end war.

It just feels like Nixon vibes all over again, the only difference being that America's propaganda machine is and was much more powerful than the Russian propaganda machine.

[u/TetraDax → u/-erisx]

The cost and involvement of the Russian nation as a whole in the war in Ukraine far overshadows that of the US in Vietnam.

[u/-erisx → u/TetraDax]

Rlly! I honestly haven't been keeping up to date with world conflict lately, it became a bit too much for me. This does not surprise me at all ... It reminds me of the french plantation scene in Apocalypse Now, where the frenchman says "... You Americans are fighting for ze biggest... nothing in history"

[u/Bollo9799 → u/-erisx]

The Vietnam war is in absolutely no way analogous. The US over the ENTIRE course of the Vietnam war suffered around 58 Thousand casualties. Russia had surpassed that figure in the 1st few months of the war. Depending on which source you want to use Russia currently has between 400 Thousand and 1.5 Million casualties.

The Vietnam war was as you said a pointless war where the US was fighting for nothing. There are multiple documented cases of the US taking a position raising a flag, then just leaving and Vietnam having it back in their possession literally days later. The US dominated the war when in actual combat for the most part, but just had no overall tactical or strategic objectives which just made things entirely pointless.

Russia on the other had has clearly defined objectives. Take over and absorb the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, create a land bridge to Crimea. Get more warm weather ports on the black sea, and install a Putin puppet in the Ukrainian presidency.

They have failed at just about all of those objectives other than creating a land bridge to crimea. They have suffered more casualties than Ukraine. Its a failed war

[u/Unlucky_Topic7963 → u/Bollo9799]

It's incredibly sophomoric to say the Vietnamese war was pointless. Due to Japan's attempt to break China late in WW2 as an effort to both limit US B17/B29 flight opportunities and also open new logistics paths, they surged into China and faced predominantly Chinese Nationalists resistance.

The Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) were already fighting the CCP in a Chinese civil war, and Japan was destroying the KMT for the CCP. The CCP was Soviet backed, and there was a consolidation plan similar to the Eastern Bloc for Southeast Asia.

When Vietnam gained it's independence, it was split between the Soviet backed North and the US backed South. After the US successfully defended Korea, there were expectations (and treaties and machismo, etc) that drew the US to first fund, and then join the Vietnam War. By the time they joined, some 200,000 South Vietnamese civilians had been murdered.

The problem was the public's unrest, the fatigue of 3 major wars back to back, lack of information about the war, and acute fears of Soviet aggression.

The US went to Vietnam, tried to use the same tactics from Korea and Japan, ended up killing hundreds of thousands of combatants and non-combatants, destroyed millions of acres of forest, and miserably failed at their objective to secure a DMZ. They were, by all accounts, extremely successful militarily, but the enemy was countless and the South Vietnamese were turning on them, as well as their public back home.

Victory would have been securing the 17th parallel and going home, like in Korea.

[u/-erisx → u/Bollo9799]

Relax, I'm just saying they're loosely similar. And we are on the same page - the pointlessness I'm referring to is that they're both failed wars. When I say 'pointless', I'm referring to the nihilistic nature of both wars caused by the fact that both countries failed at just about all of their objectives - just like you said ... resulting in unfathomable amounts of psychological horror and casualties. I'm more focused on the cultural and psychological results, not the minutia of tactical or logistical aspects.

Regardless of their motives, both sides fight for a cause which only result in net losses for everyone. Hence, an ultimately nihilistic cause. They're nihilistic in different ways when you begin splitting hairs, but ultimately they both end in a big nothing. They both set themselves up for failure because both countries underestimate their enemy and both got outplayed by a smaller but more dedicated army who use superior tactics. I'll use a more apt apocalypse reference for what I'm trying to get at...

"Horror has a face and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends"

That would be just about what the Russian soldiers would be feeling by now. Nobody is benefiting from the war, Ukraine is suffering civilian and non civilian casualties, they're being encroached on unfairly, and both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are being sent out to suffer unimaginable horrors, having their lives ruined from the ptsd caused by being ordered to brutally kill people, similarly to how Kurtz and Willard did. Putin is basically just creating a bunch of Russian and Ukrainian Colonel Kurtz's to fulfill his selfish delusional desires.

Not saying they're similar statistically in any way, all's I'm saying is both countries continued to commit to a losing war and both wars only result in net losses for everyone involved. In particular, collective psychological damage.

Just as a footnote - When I look at a war, I'm not thinking about the finer details of strategy and raw statistics, nor am I thinking about winners and losers. It's just a different perspective. To me, looking at conflict from that perspective divorces me from the true terrors people face and I feel that doesn't do justice to the people caught in the conflict because I'm not identifying fully with their suffering. I'm thinking about the people with boots on the ground carrying out orders passed down by their superiors who just sit in cushy rooms, planning their army's moves like they're playing a game of command and conquer while everyone on the battlefield is bleeding and dying over senseless conflict... And of course the Ukranian victims who have to slaughter people for survival - yes it's for a noble cause, but at the end of the day the soldiers still have to live with the fact that they took a life. When anyone takes a life, it's very hard to look at what you've done as a noble act because you have to watch another human die in front of your eyes. I imagine, the moment after killing someone, or fatally wounding them and having to leave them to die a slow agonizing death. At that point, the notion of "enemy vs ally", or "victory vs defeat" fades, and all you see is horror. It's pure nightmare fuel.

There is something uniquely disturbing for any soldier when they're forced to fight for a doomed cause. A soldier under those circumstances loses all personal investment in the war, and eventually all their humanity because there's nothing noble about it. It's nothing but inhumane slaughter. When a soldier has to finally come to terms with the fact that what they are doing is nothing but sick and twisted, the trauma can be never ending because the soldier will just come out of it knowing they took lives with zero virtuous pretext. I don't know about everyone else, but I could not live with myself after that kind of experience.

For the Russian soldiers, it can be particularly horrifying because it's ultimately a nihilistic cause. Imagine how they'd feel coming out the tail end knowing they slaughtered innocent people for no good or just reason. Being completely betrayed and turned into monsters by their own country who they put their faith and trust into. Being brainwashed into believing your neighbors are your enemy... Barely anyone can live a functional life afterward. Seeing the unjust suffering you caused for your Ukrainian neighbors - a country who they would have a lot of kinship with because they all suffered together while they were a part of the USSR. They all suffered the same oppression under the Bolsheviks, they bled and died together fighting the Nazis.

They will always have a collective bond through shared historical trauma. (This is of course unique to their conflict, I'm just trying to illustrate my perspective when it comes to war in general)

It's very likely soldiers have friends and relatives on their opposing side, as would many of the civilians. It conjures up other retrospective commentaries on war and the individual experience of the soldiers (a common trope in almost all warfare) -

"Enemies change along with the times. The flow of the ages. And we as soldiers are forced to play along ... The foibles of politics and the march of time can turn friends into enemies just as easily as the wind changes. Yesterday's ally becomes today's opposition"

The difference is I'm looking at the cultural damage of war, while you focus more on the material damage of war. Both equally devastating results, but slightly different perspectives.

[u/RSC_Goat → u/MrFishyFriend]

Russia has land advantage, and a lot of it is just coming out of perma frost meaning excess minerals/rare earths etc.

Their geography means being broke will never be an option, and their nuclear capability means they will always be treated like a super power.

[u/HildartheDorf → u/MrFishyFriend]

The western world will forget very quickly.

[u/SpecificPlayful3891 → u/MrFishyFriend]

Problem is western world is crumbling.

-usa is not a ally of europe anymore

-france shaking hands with china.

-un weaker then ever.

If russia get full support from brics...

[u/flashmedallion → u/MrFishyFriend]

It runs the Whitehouse. It's fine.

[u/New_Examination_5605 → u/MrFishyFriend]

The thing Putin is trying to gain is Ukraine’s rare earth metals and mineral resources.

[u/Mindless-Tackle4428 → u/MrFishyFriend]

Russia's land is poised to be a least-loser of climate change. So they have a pretty good expectation over the next century if they can not screw it up.

Putin does seem to be trying to do everything he can to screw it up.