Mick Ryan delivers a sobering assessment of a war that refuses to end, arguing that the coming winter will be defined not by dramatic breakthroughs, but by the grinding attrition of energy infrastructure and the inevitable fall of Pokrovsk. What makes this analysis distinct is its refusal to treat the conflict as a series of isolated battles; instead, Ryan connects the tactical desperation in eastern Ukraine to a broader, long-term strategy of mutual destruction that is reshaping the global balance of power.
The Human Cost of Attrition
Ryan begins by stripping away the tactical noise to focus on the grim reality of the battlefield. He notes that "Russia is not alone in its efforts to undermine the global rules," highlighting a coalition of states working to erode international norms. This framing is crucial because it shifts the conversation from a regional dispute to a systemic challenge for the West. However, the most haunting part of his analysis is the observation that "Citizens in both nations face a cold, bleak winter with rolling blackouts in many areas."
The author argues that the recent Ukrainian insertion of special forces into the Pokrovsk salient "smacks of desperation rather than good tactics." This is a stark, unvarnished judgment that cuts through the usual military euphemisms. Ryan suggests that while the move was courageous, it is likely a delaying action against an "inevitable fall of Pokrovsk." This perspective forces the reader to confront the possibility that a key logistical hub is about to be lost, not due to a lack of bravery, but due to the sheer weight of Russian pressure.
"Unless there is a drastic increase in the overall number of Russians killed... and the kill ratio between Ukraine and Russia improves, it is hard to see any drastic changes in the trajectory of this war."
This quote encapsulates the central tension of the conflict: Ukraine is inflicting enough damage to prevent a Russian victory, but not enough to force a political collapse in Moscow. Ryan's data supports this, noting that while the Unmanned Systems Forces have eliminated thousands of personnel, the "average cost to eliminate one Russian serviceman" remains low at $784, yet the strategic outcome remains stagnant. Critics might argue that focusing solely on casualty numbers ignores the psychological and logistical degradation of the Russian army, but Ryan's point stands: without a shift in the kill ratio, the war's trajectory is locked in.
The Shift to Energy Warfare
A significant portion of Ryan's commentary is dedicated to the evolution of Ukraine's long-range strike campaign. He observes that "Ukraine has shifted its targeting slightly to encompass the Russian power generation and distribution system." This is not merely a tactical adjustment; it is a strategic escalation designed to overwhelm Russian air defenses by targeting a wider array of dispersed locations.
Ryan details a list of strikes on power plants in Orel, Vladimir, and Kursk, noting that attacks are "almost always seemingly intended to hit flammable sections of a transformer station to set it afire." He correctly identifies that this shift is unlikely to bring the Kremlin to the negotiating table, stating, "If over one million casualties can't do this, a few power blackouts... is not going to achieve this." Instead, the goal may be to foster a mutual understanding to halt attacks on civilian infrastructure, or simply to degrade the Russian war machine's ability to function.
The human cost of this strategy cannot be overstated. As Ryan points out, "long-range strike operations by themselves are insufficient national tools by themselves for winning a war." The recent Russian strike on Ukraine, involving over 500 air attack weapons, demonstrates the reciprocal nature of this suffering. While the author praises the technical achievement of Ukraine's drone forces, the underlying reality is a brutal exchange where civilian infrastructure becomes the primary battlefield.
The Global Stakes
Ryan widens the lens to the Pacific, noting the commissioning of China's third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, as a "significant technological achievement." He connects this to the broader theme of "unprecedented levels" of defense industrial collaboration between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. This context is vital for understanding why the war in Ukraine matters to a reader in New York or London. As Lt. Gen. Alexander Sollfrank warned, "Russia is already today capable of carrying out a regionally limited attack on NATO territory."
The author draws a sobering parallel to previous conflicts, reminding us that "Previous setbacks... have not modified Putin's overall goal of subjugating Ukraine." This historical continuity suggests that the current stalemate is not a prelude to peace, but a pause in a longer campaign of attrition. Ryan's analysis of the "Battle of Pokrovsk" as a culmination point serves as a warning that the front line is not static, and that the loss of territory could reinforce Russian narratives of inevitable victory, regardless of the actual military reality.
"For the foreseeable future, both Ukraine and Russia must commit to conducting two major ground campaigns concurrently... neither Ukraine nor Russia is likely to be able to do so into 2025."
This prediction highlights the unsustainable nature of the current conflict. Both sides are stretching their resources to the breaking point, yet neither can afford to stop. The reference to the Battle of Bakhmut serves as a grim reminder of what happens when such campaigns drag on: the destruction of entire cities and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Ryan's insistence that "we cannot be naive" is a call to prepare for a long, cold, and brutal future.
Bottom Line
Mick Ryan's strongest argument is his refusal to accept the narrative of imminent victory for either side, grounding his analysis in the hard data of casualty rates and infrastructure damage rather than political hope. His biggest vulnerability lies in the assumption that the current trajectory will hold; while the data supports a stalemate, the unpredictable nature of modern warfare means that a single breakthrough could shatter these projections. The reader should watch closely for the fall of Pokrovsk, not just as a territorial loss, but as a signal that the war is entering a new, even more destructive phase of mutual energy denial.