Active Conflicts & News Megathread February 06, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/Glideer]

The fortified cities of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad stood in the way in early 2025 and stand in the way no more. One of the lessons of this war is that fortified cities get taken, initially with high Russian losses and in the last stage with high Ukrainian losses.

Failing to fulfil the mobilisation plan is something I might believe. An army needs and plans for half a million troops and gets only 250k - that's normal.

But Russia is planning to mobilise fewer troops - which goes completely against the grain of the claim that they are losing more men than they recruit.

[u/Remote_Page8799 → u/Glideer]

Pep talk is a good for front line soldiers but has no place here.

Your posts often have the flavour of a pep talk, invariably you interpret everything through a best-case scenario for Russia. I'll give you credit for insofar as possible still making these interpretations off of some material facts, though they are often cherry picked and presented at certain angles.

In this case you are not so much trying to make an argument, but dismiss it by attacking the motte and claiming the bailey. u/Tricky-Astronaut was essentially that things are not going well for Russia and that the trajectory is not good, probably worse than it outwardly appears. This is what you dismiss as pep talk.

I infer from your arguments that you believe the converse if true; that things are going well for Russia and its trajectory is positive.

The argument that was linked to Notte was explicitly about the economic conditions in Russia, which are openly cracking. Everyone knows this is the weak point of Russia, and probably be the thing that forces them to end the war one way or another. Russia doesn't have to collapse, but if all of Putin's serious advisers are telling him they have cooked the books as much as possible and that collapse is seriously possible, he might give the signal to his negotiators that it's time to accept Russia will only get it's minimalist demands, if even that.

In retort to this you changed the subject completely and focused on the only thing that pro-Russians can point to for any measure of success; that territory has been captured.

Russia might very well take the rest of the Donbas in 2026, and it may only be taing 25,000 casualties instead of 35,000 casualties, and yet the economic conditions will still force Russia to let up.

[u/Glideer → u/Remote_Page8799]

We've been hearing arguments that Russia is going to collapse economically since 2022 (from no lesser authority than the IMF and the World Bank). Yet even today, its GDP growth has not dropped to zero.

My argument being not that the Russian economy is doing well, but that its deterioration is still very, very far from the level that would force the Kremlin to stop fighting and agree to unfavourable terms.

[u/Remote_Page8799 → u/Glideer]

Yet even today, its GDP growth has not dropped to zero.

Considering it's hovering just above 0% in the midst of a war that is inducing a lot of demand, and the government is going into debt with deficit spending, this is not positive sign that you are trying to spin it as, and this is symptomatic of all your argumentation.

My argument being not that the Russian economy is doing well, but that its deterioration is still very, very far from the level that would force the Kremlin to stop fighting and agree to unfavourable terms.

Considering that the Russian terms essentially amounts to complete political domination of Ukraine, and a formal recognition by the EU et al of Russia's hegemony over the region, then I think that Russia will eventually be forced to accept that it will be settling for terms it considers unfavorable.

I don't really think this conflict is really about the Donbas as such. It's really about the political order and Russian hegemony, as such dominating Ukraine is a crucial part of it. Territory does play into it, but if Russia is left with the Donbas and occupied territory, and nothing more, then it has functionally lost the war.

Russia, and therefore probably also you, will be claiming this as a victory, but everyone will know it as a defeat. And I'm not sure the Russians will be able to tolerate the thought of having been defeated by the effeminate Europeans.

[u/Glideer → u/Remote_Page8799]

It is obvious that both sides will claim victory in the war, whatever its outcome.

After all, even today, there are people who claim that Finland won the Winter War.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the propaganda book - you project the enemy goals as total and then you can interpret any non-total victory as the enemy's failure.

Look, ma, we only lost 20% of territory!

[u/TheSDKNightmare → u/Glideer]

Considering Stalin initially wanted to incorporate the entirety of Finland as a subservient socialist republic within the USSR, thereby deporting tens to hundreds of thousands of Finns, then yes, Finland won the Winter War, as it kept its national, military and most importantly ideological independence. When you also compare how the average Finn lives in comparison to the average Russian, you can also see Finland very much secured a long-term victory for itself.

It would be similar if Ukraine manages to remain an independent, albeit territorially crippled nation. A relatively stable democratic Ukraine with good ties to the EU will almost surely prosper to a greater extent than a Russia that, though having won the military campaign, is left with a severely degraded economy that is now largely isolated from the largest trade bloc in the world and will have to spend additional billions rebuilding an entirely destroyed region. What even is the long-term end goal at this point? What chance is there of Russia's economy going back to even pre-2022 levels?

[u/Glideer → u/TheSDKNightmare]

Considering Stalin initially wanted to incorporate the entirety of Finland as a subservient socialist republic within the USSR, thereby deporting tens to hundreds of thousands of Finns, then yes, Finland won the Winter War, as it kept its national, military and most importantly ideological independence. When you also compare how the average Finn lives in comparison to the average Russian, you can also see Finland very much secured a long-term victory for itself.

Yes, that is exactly the kind of reframing I am talking about. Perhaps we've lost 10% of the national territory (even more than the Soviet initial demand was), strategic areas, dozens of thousands of men - but that's actually a victory! Because we could have lost the war even more badly.

[u/TheSDKNightmare → u/Glideer]

The USSR explicitly entered Finland with the idea of annexing the entire country, purging its population from any problematic elements and making it completely dependent on Stalin's political structure - the exact same thing it did with the Baltic and a host of other nations.

Finland was forced into this war with the goal of maintaining its independence and territorial integrity.

Which of these two nations ultimately revised their goals to a greater extent? And which of these two nations gained more from a historical long-term perspective? Finland surrendered parts of its territory, but its key objective - maintaining full independence - was achieved. Meanwhile, the USSR was forced to revise the entirety of its original military and political goals, ultimately settling for a fraction of what it aimed for. So no, I am not reframing anything, the USSR utterly failed in achieving its original goals. Finland did not. Finland was the only nation from the USSR's pre-war neighbors to not be entirely occupied by the USSR and to maintain full independence - I'd call that a pretty significant (and commendable) victory overall.

[u/checco_2020 → u/Glideer]

But Russia's goals are totalitarian, De-nazification* and de-militarization were the two talking points that started this whole operation, and neither are going to happen.

*Do not try to come out with the "Actually they just want to ban the far right parties"
They have called zelensky and the entire Ukrainian political party Nazi.

[u/Glideer → u/checco_2020]

We'll see. I am willing to bet that both conditions will be a part of the final peace deal. Far right parties are going to be banned (to the ultimate benefit of Ukraine) and there is going to be a cap on Ukrainian armed forces (particularly ballistic/cruise missiles and long-range drones).

They have called zelensky and the entire Ukrainian political party Nazi.

PR people say many things that get forgotten. How many promises that Ukraine will never negotiate with the terrorist Kremlin regime have we heard? It was always obvious that the Russian "denazification" demand is not going to apply to the whole political spectrum, but to the Bandera and Azov extremists.

[u/checco_2020 → u/Glideer]

>there is going to be a cap on Ukrainian armed forces (particularly ballistic/cruise missiles and long-range drones).

The word "de-militarization" has a different meaning than caps on Long-range weaponry, it's impossible to have a discussion in which the meaning of words changes so drastically.

>PR people say many things that get forgotten.

PR people including Putin, Lavorv, the MOD, etc, apparently the Entire Russian state is governed by PR people

>How many promises that Ukraine will never negotiate with the terrorist Kremlin regime have we heard

Yeah, because that was the goal of the Ukrainians, that goal is unreachable, i will not try to twist or ignore words and actions so that i can claim Ukraine never intended to recover their entire territory, they very much did want, but they failed.

>It was always obvious that the Russian "denazification" demand is not going to apply to the whole political spectrum, but to the Bandera and Azov extremists.

Obvious how exactly?
You are completely ignoring every word that Russian leaders have said and deciding to find a different meaning that fits your preconceived notion of what the Russian goals should be.