Did we win yet?

"Relative to NATO forces, the railway-supplied Russians are short on logistics support and heavy on artillery.

Russia’s artillery battalions are the pride of its armed forces, often judged by defense experts to have a qualitative and quantitative advantage over their Western counterparts. As the besieged forces in Kharkiv and Mariupol can attest, the lethality of Russian forces will only rise as this artillery is brought to the front.

 A slower war of siege may not have been Mr. Putin’s original invasion plan, but it poses severe difficulties for the Kyiv’s forces. It is unclear how long forces in Kyiv can withstand a siege. By one American estimate, once Kyiv is surrounded, its food supplies will last for only two weeks. Kyiv’s forces in the east face a similar dilemma. If Kharkiv or Zaporizhya falls into Russian hands, the Kyiv’s forces will have to decide between abandoning eastern Ukraine for a more defensible position or risk having their supplies cut off and their position surrounded.

It is unlikely that mounting casualties or temporary logistical frustrations will be enough to force the Russians off the battlefield if either objective — the fall of Kyiv or a Ukrainian retreat from the east — remains in sight. Either will put the Russian forces in a favorable position when peace negotiations begin in earnest. To cease hostilities, the Russians have already demanded that Kyiv’s forces recognize the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk, acknowledge Russian sovereignty over Crimea and amend its Constitution to ensure future neutrality. These demands will grow more onerous as the Russian advance creeps forward. Left unspoken in these negotiations is the matter of Western sanctions. Mr. Putin will require at least a partial face-saving victory to end this war. A promise to decrease sanctions might meet this need. This outcome would not be just, but it would hold the best potential for saving the most Kyiv’s forces’ lives.”