The Red Army City Battle Royale: Putin’s Gamble and Ukraine’s Boiling Frog Strategy

 

The Ukrainian army has recaptured most of Red Army City and destroyed Russia’s elite 76th Guards Division. Putin’s order to seize Red Army City as a bargaining chip has once again failed—this time under the premise that Trump has completely withdrawn from NATO and stopped aiding Ukraine. Meanwhile, European countries bordering Russia, including the Baltic states, Sweden, and Finland, have openly declared plans to build forces that would directly fight Russia if Ukraine were defeated. Britain, France, and Germany are also attempting to bypass the EU and deploy troops into Ukraine, with the stated condition of avoiding direct clashes with Russian forces. Yet since the war began, such conditions have proven illusory, serving only to buy time while gradually implementing intervention. From a broader perspective, even without U.S. support, as long as Europe establishes a reliable support mechanism, Ukraine can continue the war—at least until the U.S. midterm elections, when American politics may shift.

Currently, neither side has the ability to annihilate the other militarily. Ukraine has been under nationwide military mobilization for four years, steadily strengthening its capabilities. Russia, by contrast, has no better option than attritional warfare, maintaining a stalemated front line. Over four years, Russian forces have suffered massive losses in personnel, equipment, ammunition, logistics, and supplies, while enduring Ukrainian raids and relentless international sanctions. Ukraine has already struck Russia’s energy facilities across the board and now targets civilian infrastructure and transport hubs. Russia’s economy is increasingly strained, with energy exports slashed and revenues plummeting. Yet the basic funding for war continues thanks to Chinese support. In short, as long as China provides lifelines, Russia can keep fighting until the international situation changes. As long as the war persists, the West cannot fully pressure China, since Western economies remain deeply tied to China. Trump’s trade war has already failed, leaving China in a position of advantage. Moreover, under Trump’s global pressure, many U.S. allies hedge their bets, cooperating with China to offset American influence.

America’s explicit refusal to support Ukraine is effectively a withdrawal from NATO, reducing its influence in Europe and weakening its global posture. This indirectly boosts China’s leverage, strengthened by the trade war outcome. For Europe, supporting Ukraine to wear down Russia is the obvious path. Putin, now in his seventies, cannot sustain a decade‑long war like Afghanistan; another five years would likely exhaust both Russia and Putin. Meanwhile, China’s internal environment is also shifting. Trump’s collusion with Russia has triggered backlash at home. If U.S. military aid is cut off, the biggest losers will be American arms manufacturers. For four years, Western defense industries have operated around the clock, producing nonstop. To sustain the front, Europe and the wider world have scoured for ammunition. If the war drags on for several more years, Western defense industries will return to Cold War levels. At that point, even if Russia wanted to stop, it would be difficult.

Russia and Putin are gambling with national destiny. For Putin, whether he can endure or not—even considering nuclear options—defeat would mean certain death and Russia’s disintegration. Thus, securing a relatively dignified ceasefire agreement through Trump’s help is crucial, though Trump’s time is limited. Everything now hinges on Russia’s battlefield performance. Yet the Russian army falls far short of its reputation as the world’s second‑strongest military. It can only keep filling the front lines with troops, relying on sheer numbers to launch meaningless tactical assaults, hoping to blunt Ukraine’s advantages. Maintaining the current front and achieving symbolic victories—such as Bakhmut before and Red Army City now—would strengthen Russia’s bargaining position. But so far, these attempts have failed.

For Putin, prolonging the war itself is victory. Trump’s withdrawal means Russia only needs to confront Europe, and historically Russia has had many ways to deal with Europe. Thus, Putin is not entirely disadvantaged. If Europe descends into full‑scale war while America stands aside, Russia might even turn the tide—especially with nuclear options and Trump’s government as external support. For Ukraine, rushing to reclaim territory and win outright may not be the best strategy. Instead, gradual attrition across all fronts—military, morale, energy, transport, defense industry, civilian infrastructure, industrial base, and agriculture—is wiser. Militarily, Ukraine should avoid reckless offensives. This “boiling frog” approach, sustained for another four years, could produce decisive change. Ukraine is shifting from pure military strikes to comprehensive attrition, combining fighting and negotiating, alternating between talks and battles, to prolong the war indefinitely.

Once Russia’s resources are completely exhausted, Ukraine can unite with the EU to launch a decisive counteroffensive, finally resolving Europe’s peace and security dilemma. As for Trump, it seems Abe has been waiting for him for quite some time.