Mick Ryan cuts through the static of daily frontline updates to ask a question most analysts are too afraid to answer: Can Russia actually win this war, or is it merely grinding down Ukraine to force a political surrender? By shifting the metric from "square kilometers gained" to "strategic return on investment," Ryan exposes a brutal paradox where the Kremlin's military momentum masks a deepening strategic failure.
The Illusion of Momentum
Ryan begins by dismantling the common narrative that territorial gains equate to victory. He argues that the current Russian advance is less about land and more about a political gamble to force a ceasefire on favorable terms. "Russian advances on the ground in Ukraine this year, while limited compared to the resources expended to secure them, provide an insight into the mindset of the Russian military leadership," Ryan writes. This framing is crucial because it forces the reader to look past the map lines and see the human and material cost behind every meter of progress. The author suggests that the administration's focus on "political gain" rather than total conquest is a sign of adaptation, not necessarily a sign of weakness, but one that comes at a staggering price.
"Russia retains the strategic initiative in this war. And, over the past three years, it has learned to learn better, to adapt systemically and harness its relationships with Iran, China and North Korea to support its war effort."
Ryan's observation that the Russian military has achieved a "critical mass" in its ability to learn is supported by his analysis of their operational tempo. He notes that Moscow is no longer just reacting; it is systematically integrating foreign support and refining its tactics. This echoes the lessons of the Battle of Debaltseve, where Russian forces demonstrated a terrifying capacity to encircle and destroy Ukrainian units through superior coordination. However, Ryan is careful to distinguish between tactical adaptation and strategic success. He points out that while the executive branch has managed to sustain a multi-axis offensive, the cost is unsustainable. "It has come at the cost of around 350,000 casualties in 2025," he notes, citing British intelligence. This figure is not just a statistic; it represents a hemorrhage of human life that threatens to destabilize the very society the Kremlin claims to be defending. Critics might argue that Russia's vast population reserves make these losses manageable in the short term, but Ryan's data suggests that the quality of manpower is degrading faster than quantity can replace it.
The Aerial Siege and the Human Toll
The commentary shifts to the skies, where the nature of the conflict has become increasingly brutal. Ryan highlights a disturbing trend: the shift from mixed missile strikes to an overwhelming reliance on cheap, mass-produced drones. "By the start of November 2025, this had more than doubled to 170 per day," he writes regarding the deployment of HESA Shahed 136 variants. This escalation is not merely a tactical choice; it is a strategy of attrition designed to exhaust Ukraine's air defenses and terrorize its civilian population. The sheer volume of these strikes, combined with an average of 175 glide bombs per day, creates a constant state of siege that makes normal life impossible for millions.
"The magnitude of strikes has increased since the start of 2025. While most strikes still feature a mix of drones, ballistic and cruise missiles, Shahed drone variants are now the overwhelming majority of weapons used in these strikes."
Ryan's analysis here is particularly sobering. He does not glorify the technology; instead, he frames it as a tool of desperation and volume over precision. The increase in glide bomb usage, in particular, signals a shift toward leveling cities rather than targeting specific military assets. This aligns with the broader narrative of the war being about "subjugating Ukraine" and breaking its will to resist. The human cost of this aerial campaign is immense, with civilian infrastructure and defense industries under continuous assault. Ryan's refusal to sugarcoat the reality of these attacks serves as a stark reminder that for the people on the ground, the war is not a chess game but a fight for survival.
The Strategic Failure of Containment
Perhaps the most damning part of Ryan's assessment is his evaluation of Russia's ability to neutralize Ukraine's deep strike capabilities. He argues that despite Moscow's efforts to fortify its airspace, Ukraine has successfully turned the tables, striking deep into Russian territory to degrade its war-making capacity. "Ukraine's long-range strike operations reinforce that Russia cannot win this war," Ryan asserts. He points to the destruction of up to 40% of Russian oil refining capability as evidence of this failure. This is a critical point: if a major power like the United States or Saudi Arabia suffered such losses, it would trigger a national panic. Yet, in Russia, the response has been muted, suggesting a disconnect between the Kremlin's narrative of strength and the reality on the ground.
"The only assessment that can be made against this measure of success for Russia is that they are failing – and failing worse as each day goes on."
Ryan's argument is bolstered by the introduction of new Ukrainian weapons systems, such as the Flamingo missile, and improved integration of intelligence and targeting. This demonstrates that Ukraine is not just surviving but evolving into a more potent threat. The author notes that Ukraine's strikes are "precise, focused, and disciplined," avoiding the targeting of civilians while systematically dismantling Russia's economic and military infrastructure. This contrasts sharply with Russia's own tactics, highlighting a moral and strategic divergence between the two sides. Critics might suggest that Russia's internal security apparatus is simply better at hiding the extent of the damage, but the economic indicators and the visible destruction of refineries tell a different story.
"Nothing demonstrates this more than the increasingly dangerous (for Russia) long-range strike campaign being executed with precision, focus and discipline by Ukraine."
Bottom Line
Ryan's most compelling contribution is his insistence on measuring success by strategic outcomes rather than territorial inches, revealing that Russia's "victories" are pyrrhic and its failures are systemic. While the Kremlin may claim momentum, the evidence of 350,000 casualties and the collapse of its air defense against deep strikes suggests a trajectory toward strategic exhaustion rather than victory. The reader should watch closely for how the administration's diplomatic pressure interacts with these military realities, as the window for a favorable Russian outcome is rapidly closing.