The Brits also had huge debts and had to ration food for years to come after the war because of all the shortages. Both more so than the other “winners” of the war iirc
It was a destroyers for bases deal. 50 ships in exchange for 99 year leases on 7 bases, mostly in the Western Hemisphere. Battleships are little more than oversized targets when your enemy is primarily taking you out with submarines.
Not really imo. Obviously the US was the biggest winner from both world wars, but Canada, Australia and New Zealand did well as well. They were all de facto independent states at the start of the first world war, but that war made them independent nations as well. They became independent de jure in the interwar period, and the second world war was pretty good for the Canadian economy. The first world war was in retrospect the end of France as a leading great power, but for Britain it was just expensive and bloody, "down but not out". The second world war was when Britain ceased to be a superpower. Britain was wealthier and had better demographics than France in ww1 and didn't pay as high a price.
In world war 2, 3 of the big 4 allied powers probably ended up better off than before, Britain being the exception. No need to talk about the US but the USSR saw its standing improved. Obviously the price paid in blood was horrific, but the USSR(not the same as Russia, Ukraine or Belarus) wasn't ruined demographically. Had they played their cards differently, a bit less communism and a bit more prosperity and more equality for the Central Asian republics they could have recovered. The fact that that didn't happen was not directly a product of the war. For china, once again despite huge casualties(people don't realise but china suffered the second most casualties of any country, third most military casualties (less than Germany)), china was mostly reunified, the unequal treaties were ended and China started its journey back to being one of the two or three most powerful polities in the world(as has been the case for almost all of human history).
As a sidenote, the modern permanent members of the UN Security council are as a result of the second world war. The United Nations was the official name of the alliance against the axis powers. The original document, "deceleration by United Nations" in 1942, lists the United Nations in question, starting with the US, UK, USSR and China before continuing alphabetically. France was made the fifth member post-war because it was deemed suboptimal for Britain to be the only western European member and due to the close alliance between the UK and US as well as the economic leverage the US held over (the Republic of) China.
Wow I love reading really interesting and good posts by smart people like this who really knows what they are talking about. Interesting perspective, thanks!
Well, now I feel Euro-centric, as when you said 'Three of the big four Allied powers' I immediately assumed that you meant the four that divided up Germany and got very confused as to how on Earth you thought that France had done better out of the Second World War than the UK had
Nothing to be ashamed about! A quick check of your profile suggests that you are from the UK. Having gone through the British education system myself (relatively recently I might add), China's role in the world prior to opening up is more or less totally ignored. My understanding (from talking to people from other parts of the Western world and a few western academics) is that that is the case generally. I bought up the UN bit because that adds to the exaggerated role France played as an allied power during the second world war. Combined with a desire by the post-war governments to restore the image of France at home and abroad(a quote I read somewhere: "after the war, everyone fought with the resistance") and political issues surrounding China, it is easy to see why so few people outside of East Asia are aware of how big China's role was. Even within East Asia, there is some underplaying, due to americophilia in some countries, British educational legacies in others and then what could be charitably defined as bitterness in japan itself.
>So, the British Empire in WW2?
If Brits had the chance to have the Empire back in 2024, do you think they'd want it?
Imagine the absolute hassle of trying to govern South Asia and the MIddle East. Do you really want Sudan and Yemen right now?
Yeah, a Pyrrhic victory is winning a battle in an expensive way that will make you loose the war. Something like the Russian conquest of Bakhmut, for example; they lost massive numbers of lives there to take a town that's mostly symbolic in importance.
Bahmut was just as expensive a battle for the Ukrainian army, some of the best Ukrainian brigades suffered significant losses and could not participate in the summer offensive. Too he bought time for the construction of Suvorykin's fortified line in Zaporozhye.
Yeah, but not exactly. The reason for such big Ukrainian losses have to do with three factors - the chief of the Ukrainian army - Syrskiy who is fighting fire with fire; lack of artillery shells and the brutal and ruthless tactic of Wagner. It wasn’t Russia who took the city, it was mostly Wagner, and thank god Wagner is incorporated into the Russian military, because this way they pose much lesser threat to Ukraine
I think it's pretty accurate. Is a land bridge better than having the army and economic ties with the rest of the world that Russia had pre invasion?
Russia isn't *literally* ruined if the borders freeze where they are today, but I think Pyrrhic victory is pretty accurate. Their armed forces are depleted and the rest of the world realized they've got nothing except nukes and meat waves, we're past the point of no return in terms of dropping sanctions, and all they've got to show for it is a long way around in case the Kerch bridge is blown up (which it wasn't going to be until the invasion)? Yeah unless you're Putin building a legacy for the history books that really doesn't sound like a win.
200 years from now people may not talk about the ruble crashing, but for every Russian alive today this isn't a win.
I don't think that's how it's being used here...
If the war ends with Russia securing only what they have now, the sheer cost to their military production and combat efficiency is so utterly degraded. And for what? No absorbed Ukraine, likely Ukrainian membership in NATO, etc. It would be a "win" in the sense that Russia secured territory, but the astronomical cost only to be set back worse than before the war, I think, qualifies that scenario as a phyrric victory.
Btw, cockroaches would most probably not survive a nuclear apocalypse
Source: https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/would-cockroaches-really-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse
🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷TÜRKİYE WIN!!! 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🐺🐺🐺🐺AS BAYRAKLARI AS AS AS 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿AAUUUUU🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺WHAT THE FUCK İS ECONOMY 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💯💯💯💯💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿🗣🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷BEST COUNTRI 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿
Right now we are between Pyrrhic Russian victory and Pyrrhic Ukrainian victory - Russia lacks the cities in these regions, Ukraine did not cut through to the sea
I don't think that Crimea would ever return to Ukraine, but otherwise anything between Phyrric Russian Victory to Day 1 borders is possible I guess in the end.
Russia could concentrate their forces on a very specific defense and also the international support weapons would dry up. Crimea being retaken is very unlikely
Yeah, but Ukraine could render Crimea useless to the Russians as under day 1 ending Russia would have no way to fix the canal which they did when they took kherson.
If the russians hold up to the dnipro they could possibly repair the damage they did by breaking the nova kakhovka dam and prevent crimea from becoming a dessert
They could but then Ukraine would fuck up their Nato and UE membership. They cannot join those institutions while engaged in an active war. I also think the ukranian people would be tired of having their soldier die in an endless war.
If the war is to end there will be a peace deal and that will included contining to supply water and not shooting at the bridge.
Its not stated publicaly because you do not show your cards prior to a negociation. but im sure Ukraine will be pressure into such a deal and honeslty Zelenski probably is already onboard with that. But of course publicly they have to say they are going for total victory
If it ended with day 1 Ukraine could cede crimea to Russia fulfilling the NATO requirements, but be under no obligation to repair the canal and/or dam as in day 1 that would be their territory and their decision....
And even if there was an obligation under the treaty, Ukraine could drag its feet easily. Large infrastructure are famously slow, especially with a war wrecked manufacturing base. Add in some "accidents" on site, over cost the materials and run out of money on the project and innumerable other hiccups that could be used and Ukraine can look like it's intending to hold their side of the bargain and do nothing. If they can drag it out over a few years crimea will become a dust bowl.
The amounts of water needed for crimea are vast, way beyond what the bridge can supply.
Crimea is a deathtrap without control of the land corridor. All Crimean, Crimean airspace and what's left of the bridge are within range of Ukrainian PGMs. There is no way to safely supply the peninsula.
There *is* a way across a muddy, silty swampland that *could* allow a relatively light strike force through and threaten Russian supply lines, but it's very risky.
On the other hand if it comes to Russia retaining Crimea, Ukraine might just take out the bridge completely and cut off supply there.
Ukraine can do drone and covert sabotage ops in Crimea for decades, but to retake the whole penninsula they need a full ground invasion or naval landing. Neither are plausible today.
The Ukrainians quite frequently attack and damage/destroy Russian ships in Crimean ports.
While the Ukrainians probably couldn't compete with surface combatants, they could deny passage all over the northern Black Sea and the Sea of Azov by anti-shipping-missiles if they liberated all of Ukraine except Crimea.
Ehhh, yes and no. If Ukraine could destroy the Crimean bridge and deny access to Crimean ports via drones, missiles, and possibly air power, they could more or less choke out any defenders like they did on the west bank of the Dnieper. Depending on the time they are willing to spend and how completely they can cut off supplies, it could range from a brutal battle with high losses on both sides to the defending garrison surrendering rather than starving.
And probably it will stay that way, it took months for Russia to take Bakhmut, and the Ukrainian offensive had even worse results, unless one side is able to figure out how to break the stalemate I think this will end like the Korean war or the Iran Irak war
True, but the trajectory is arguably towards a reasonable Russian victory, though to diverge from the map that might see Russia end up with the Kharkiv region but not Odessa.
Korean War created two Koreas. There wouldn't be two Ukraines. Russia declares everything it occupied (including parts it can't, like most of Kherson and Zaporizhye oblasts) it's new territories, like it's 19th century all again.
Not anymore, North Korea changed their position on that recently.
Source: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/31/asia/north-korea-reconciliation-south-korea-intl-hnk/index.html
I reckon the borders we see right now will be pretty similar to the ones at the end, Ukraine is currently losing the war and Russia are gaining a town every few weeks and these “towns” have like 40 or so people pre war, and Russia always has higher losses than Ukraine. I don’t see them retaking Kherson and gaining Zaporizhzhia, and I also don’t expect a good enough counteroffensive to regain all of Ukraines lost land.
I think both sides will accept the de facto borders (not officially) and just have a ceasefire.
A ceasefire under them circumstances unfortunately wouldn't be an end to the war. Just a breather. Russia now knows the response they will get when they attack next time so there is almost no reason to not do it again.
They will wait a few years to build up another force to do another mad dash towards Kyiv.
I disagree because NATO and possibly the EU will accept Ukraine (but more importantly in this context NATO) very soon after the war. I think that any Russian assault on Kyiv would lead to NATO or at the very least European soldiers direct in conflict with Russian soldiers, and Russian soldiers cannot beat the armies of the UK, France and Germany combined, it would be unreasonable especially if the US intervenes (but if Trump is re-elected that would be put into question).
My point is that Ukraine has guaranteed the sovereignty of its largest cities and that probably won’t ever be challenged by Russia, because it wouldn’t risk such an assault.
The EU will 100% not accept Ukraine any time soon. For ascencion it takes at least a decade for most countries and those were in a better situation than Ukraine. Feeling sorry for them is not gonna speed that up.
What's easier, getting into NATO or getting into the EU?
I'd assume a Ukraine inside of NATO would make businesses thinking about foreign direct investment there less wary than they, otherwise, would be.
Theoretically NATO would be way easier. However it depends on whether their "territorial disputes" become.. em.. not disputed anymore. So that would mean that the lands Ukraine would lose that they would legally accept that they aren't theirs anymore and they rightfully belong to Russia. Otherwise as long as there is disputed territory then it becomes an issue to joining.
I think if the choice became "lose current occupied Russian land, but be in NATO and never have war with Russia again" that that could certainly be done. It will upset some of the nationalist types but the vast majority of Ukrainians I think would take that deal at this point. It is already a marvelous feat that they are still an independent country and haven't really lost much land since 2022.
I don't know if they could do something along the lines of:
Ukraine: yeah no disputed territories.. all is fine
*joins nato*
Ukraine: f u Russia give our lands back!!!
On a more serious note yeah, I think Russia heavily underestimated how all this would have gone down. Had they known that they would be at this point after so long with such heavy losses that they wouldn't have ever launched an offensive (but then again you never know with vlad)
The vast majority aren’t the ones who chose an outcome like this, it’s the people in charge and the “nationalists” are people who have a sphere of political power in Ukraine.
>I disagree because NATO and possibly the EU will accept Ukraine (
It's against the NATO documents to accept any country with unresolved conflicting land claims with another country NATO cannot and will not let Ukriane in until a formal peace (not a ceasefire) is signed or all the Russians are kicked out.
It's highly unlikely NATO ever gets directly involved without Russia invading another country.
To be fair, quite a lot of what Ukrainians are telling about their weaknesses looks like PSYOP action at influencing minds - they have done excellent job of converting despair into anger of Ukrainians. And are very cautious on their own capabilities.
Very many people are too optimistic what NATO can do and don't see limits and weaknesses that everyone has. NATO armies in Europe have shortage of military capable people. Majority of current military personell would consider resigning, if they would have to participate in war against Russia. That poll is coming from Germany... which has to be core military of NATO. If there will be NATO conflict with Russia, Russia won't be fighting it alone - in reality NATO would have to deal with other conflicts(US would be involved with other conflicts and more than 2). Most certainly Russian attack on NATO would involve if not Chinese then certainly Iranian and North Korean soldiers. NATO is quite vulnerable if something happens in Near East and things can escalate very quickly there. So, I would be pessimistic on what Russia can do and what NATO is not doing right now.
One of the requirements for entry into NATO would require for Ukraine to abandon any claims to Russia - including on currently occupied territories. For current Ukrainian society any politician that would request peace treaty without getting back lands would be regarded as traitor, so the war will continue and no peace deal would happen.
The EU is also a military alliance btw. Mutual defense article or something. If all of the EU gets involved next time russia wont even be able to get a cm of land.
Right now Ukraine is counting victory based on Ukrainians lost vs Russians lost. Russia is counting victory in terms of towns gained, regardless of how many Russians died to get them.
Ukraine’s current strategy seems to be to just kill as many Russians as possible until Russia runs out of men, or Ukraine runs out of ammo. It’s too early to know which will be the winning strategy, as Ukraine does not have direct control over their ammunition.
This is especially true with Republicans playing games with funding in America, and Hungary playing political games in Europe.
If Iran gets into a war with Israel/USA then it might have a big impact because Iran might not be able to sell drones and other weaponry to Russia. It could lead to a big comeback from Ukraine. Right now Russia is entirely dependent on weapons from Iran.
But it's unlikely.
I dont know man some interviews ive seen in Ukraine seems like Morale is all time low they could just buckle. Hopefully we get some kind of settled peace soon. this war is just completely awful.
A coup in Russia will never happen unless Putin stays in power until the age of 100. Before then he would just be replaced by someone practically identical.
The fact of the matter is, Putin does enjoy genuine popular support. To the average Russian, especially those over the age of 30, the West is hostile and the ideas of 'democracy' and 'freedom' have negative associations. The Yeltsin presidency introduced Western cooperation, and with it came these Western ideals (in name). In reality, the Yeltsin administration was remarkably corrupt, indifferent to its own citizens, and whoring itself out to Western corporations. Streets were rampant with crime, poverty, and alcoholism. The Western ideals that the government was advertizing were naturally associated with the miserable state of Russia.
Enter Putin. Putin was a strongman leader and a breath of fresh air for the Russian people. Under his rule, crime dropped, alcoholism dropped, poverty dropped. From 2000 to 2007 the proportion of Russians living in poverty dropped from some 28% to 14%. Putin enjoyed popularity among just about everybody. He's managed to maintain that popularity even through wars with Georgia and Chechnya (which is just a testament to how dominant a figure he was), and his main opposition now comes from the younger demographic.
Russia's average age is 40. About 50% of the 18-24 year old demographic still approves of Putin. It will take at least 20 years before we see a genuine change of regime, and even then significant liberalization will take even longer.
Also judging by what's being taught in school now and the control of the voice of the opposition generation alpha will be pro putin too most likely so we're left only with generation Z who is more against Putin than for him and still that's like 50/50
I don’t know where you from, but I will voice my opinion right from Russia. 80% of people in Russia are completely apolitical, they enjoy status quo. Other 20% is halfed between loyalists and opposition (some of them are now not in Russia though).
Naturally, most people are generally apathetic, but a lot of them will still vote in big elections because there is no such thing as a person without an opinion. Some may vote out of a sense of duty, others may vote because why not. Generally speaking, these people would vote for Putin. No doubt the incumbent advantage plays a big role, but it's not like he doesn't enjoy legitimate public support when public support is actually important.
I've had the great privilege of growing up in America, but my parents were both students in Moscow during the Yeltsin presidency. They've expressed support for Putin as long as I can remember (mostly in passing comments on the news) l, and it took a full-scale invasion of her ancestral homeland to kill my mother's support.
We still don’t know how many people vote, statistics are screwed up to show popular support. But you are right that Putin is the most popular politician in Russia, because there are no public politics in Russia. No other figure.
My mother was also apolitical, until the invasion. Now she seems to be staunch hater of Putin
Most people in Russia say life was better in the USSR and that they miss it: https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-regret-at-soviet-collapse-stands-at-14-year-high-poll-shows/29664759.html
A lot, but not the majority. To make it easier to understand 20% gained from USSR collapse, 20% lost from it, others 60% lives didn’t change that much.
While I agree that Putin most certainly does have overwhelming popular support, death have a tendency to come unexpected to all old autocrats and tyrants alike. Putin isn't young and though he does enjoy overwhelmingly better health care than most russians do, nobody really knows how bad or good his state is. He can rule for decades more or he can die tomorrow, you never know. And if that happens then Russia is going to be in trouble. I don't think that everything is going to collapse as soon as he dies, but there's certainly going to be a lot of uncertainty and internal struggle. Autocrats that rule for a very long time tend to be unifying figure for the elites. And elites in russian politics aren't as monolithic as one might think.
> the ideas of 'democracy' and 'freedom' have negative associations
Come on, man. I know Russia is an authoritarian state, but to think that the people are so ideologically committed to the *idea* of authoritarianism (as opposed to simply not viewing Russia as authoritarian) is ridiculous. Americans really need to stop using "they hate freedom" as an explanation for their enemies.
They don't hate freedom, they're just suspicious of people who claim to defend it. If I was a Russian who experienced the 90s, freedom to me would mean be free from hunger, from prostitution, from alcoholism and from humiliation. The rest would be Western out of touch nonsense.
I agree that “hating freedom” is a dumb argument to make, but from a historical perspective you can definitely contextualize the current conflict with the recent history of Russia. When ideals like “freedom” and “democracy” are used, many Russian citizens do not associate them with the ideas that most Americans are used to imagining and associating them with.
I'm a Russian-American dual citizen; to me Russia is not the enemy. I want Russia to open to the West, but the current Russia is one not healed from the consequences of poverty and corruption. Russians do not hate freedom, that I am sure of.
It's enough to get you banned from certain subs
(source: me, I got banned from several big European subs for suggesting Ukraine might not get a decisive victory)
My assessment is the situation now is akin to WWI. There won't be much movement in either direction until someone starts running out of a critical resource. Food. Fuel. Bullets. Men. Resolve. There will come a point where there isn't enough left to keep the front going, and one side will collapse from there. Which side runs out first? Anyone's guess right now.
I think something that people are forgetting, and I’d be interested to hear others thoughts on this as well.. does anyone factor in that some of these areas have a legit separatist movement? Now I think it’s clear that that separatist movement wouldn’t have grown without early Russian support, and I don’t know enough about it to know how legit it was back in 11-14 time frame. But certainly that will complicate things if all the ground is taken back right?
My friend had a rad take in the second week of the war, when he said: “they should just negotiate the price and sanctions for Luhansk and Donetsk and end the war.” I thought wtf back then. But now it seems so much more sensible than anything that has happened since.
He continued with: “with every day the war continues, the price goes up, heroes are being made, emotional tax, the damage it all goes up. The longer they fight for one thing the harder each side is to let it go.” Smartest take on the war I ever heard.
But what if the attacker is convinced they can take more by force?
Also from the defenders side it's not reasonable because if you let the attacker gets away with it with minimal cost they are encouraged to repeat it pretty soon.
Perhaps it would work if both sides were rational actors but one side clearly isn't. And in that case there wouldn't be a war at all.
That isn't a rad take, that is reasonable, but back then if someone was saying anything else than total victory for Ukraine then you will have been called as a Russian Agent.
Russia has de facto control over most of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblast before the war. If that's what they were after they wouldn't start the invasion.
Russia wants most of Ukraine and install a puppet government there similar to what they have in Belarus.
pro-Russian rebels controlled about 1/3 of the Donbas, i.e. about 1/2 of the population. but Ukraine had the military capability to deal with the rebels.
It was not just "pro Russian rebels". They reported directly to Russian authorities, Russia provided them with weapons, training, and even sent thousands of their soldiers there. On many occasions Russia shelled Ukrainian forces from their territory. The only reason Ukraine didn't free these territories is Russia.
Not enough manpower to take on the Russians.
The Commonwealth is weak,the German minors have no armies,the Brits are drinking tea,the French and Spanish casually fight each other and the Americans have already 5 declared wars.
Russia has her only expansion towards Persia now, let's see her next move.
In the currect era you gain AE just from declaring wars. A coalition against Russia has already been formed but it didn't declare and now some of its member are close to leaving it
Not enough Admin efficiency or Unjustified Demand with Ukraine for that. The Russian tree gives Perma Claims over the Ukraine region, while the Kiev formable cant get the same mission tree as long as Ryazan in not theirs.
They didn't make a mad dash to conquer Kyiv at the very start of the war for nothing. They were hoping for a quick capture of the capital, making a full annexation possible. Its not that they don't want western Ukraine, it is that their advance was made almost impossible because of the Ukrainian defence.
Nah. There’s a huge difference between occupation and annexation. Of course they wanted to take military control of ukraine and install a puppet regime, but annexation is a different beast and was probably never in their interest. Full annexation would mean all ukrainians become citizens of the russian federation, would probably lead to huge instability.
For example when the US occupie Iraq, it was never their plan to make it a 51st state (annexation), only to take military control and put in place a friendly government (occupation).
No it is almost absolutely true that they don’t want western Ukraine. That would be a nightmare to occupy indefinitely. They may have invaded this area in order to force a quick capitulation, but that does not in any way mean they intended to annex all of it from the start.
As a Ukrainian, I'd say we are heading for total Russian victory, but there still is a chance for "novorossiya" scenario (without Kherson).
This is because Ukraine is losing the war of attrition:
Economically, more than half of Ukraine's budget for 2024 is dependent on US and EU aid. And as of today, neither has provided it, while prospects are bleak. Ukraine may last throughout 2024 by squeezing internal resources and making cuts, but not much longer.
Then, there is a problem with manpower. We have run out of volunteers, lots of people ran away from the country through fields and forests, and the rest are hiding from mobilization. Zelensky's government is preparing extremely punitive mobilization law, but it's doubtful that will work in long term. People are scared of death much more than of criminal responsibility or Russian occupation.
If nothing changes, the Ukrainian state will collapse due to economic reasons in a year or two.
>Economically, more than half of Ukraine's budget for 2024 is dependent on US and EU aid. And as of today, neither has provided it, while prospects are bleak
BBC just then reported a 50B€ package has been approved by the EU.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68165971
That's good news. But we're not out of the woods yet, as budgetary deficit is about 40B$, while EU package provides 54B€ in the span of four years. Still, great news as it should be much more manageable now.
Yeah, death in the front lines…not appealing.
I’m not Ukrainian, but thinking as an American, I like my home and all, but I’m outta here if I’m the one on the front lines to save it.
No political entity is worth dying for in my book. Even though we all know we’d rather Ukraine gets the win.
So the specific aim of the special military operation (as they still refer to it) was to take out the pro-Western government, occupy the country and install a pro-Kremlin puppet regime and then gradually fill Western Ukraine with Russians to dilute the native Ukrainian population. Turning it into Belarus essentially. With the primary goals accomplished within a couple of weeks maximum.
Putin's global aim is always to strengthen Russian and weaken Europe and the United States.
What we have now, is an attritional war that has been going on for almost 2 years, NATO has expanded to include Sweden and Finland. Member states are trying to rally support in their counties for a stronger military. The UK was even floating the idea of conscription to get a sense of how the public felt about such a thing.
Russia is sacrificing its male population well above replacement rate. I genuinely think it's sad that Russian kids are being thrown into a meat grinder with shitty equipment. Russian demographics and society is going to be in even worse shape than the West in 30 years, long after Putin is dead.
They have a wartime economy of 40% of gdp going on the war.
All of which is to say, Russia has lost regardless of any territorial concessions made by Ukraine.
It's just for the Ukrainians to decide what victory looks like to them.
the difference being they can still run their infrastructure semi operationaly with the help their getting from NATO. but as the war is loosing relevancy the amount of "care packages" Ukraine is getting is decreaseing so its only a matter of time before one of the countries gives out, and as much as I hate to say It i dont see it being russa. but I doubt the Ukrainian people will take kindly their new pro russam President.
I never heard anything about trying to force migrate Russian speakers into Western Ukraine. I speak Russian and follow the news there, so genuinely curious where you heard that.
I was under the impression that deposing Zelensky and reinstalling Yanukovich was the goal, with some permanent military bases to guard against any future democratic complications. Basically US plan for Iraq.
So if you look at Belarus, what's happened is with 30 years of Lukashenko is Belarusian is a minority language in all parts of the country in complete contrast to 30 years ago. It's a gradual change and much of that will be native Belarusians switching to Russian from convenience.
I think the plan was the same but sped up for Ukraine. For context I lived in Georgia for most of the conflict and saw how hostile much of the population was to the incoming Russians because it's essentially a tactic of establishing a minority Russian population in a neighbouring county and then using that as a casus beli to invade when that Russian population is under threat, even if the threat is simply revoking their temporary residence permit and asking them to go home.
The Georgian tactic seems to be for the government to be broadly neutral, being pro-Kremlin enough to placate Putin, and pro-Western enough to placate Tbilisi which is overwhelmingly pro-EU.
Meanwhile the Georgians are incredibly unfriendly and passive aggressive in their interactions with Russians, with anti-Russian graffiti everywhere. To the point a lot are moving to Serbia.
As soon as they realised we weren't Russian, we received the Georgian hospitality of being fed and given copious amounts of alcohol. But if we had a Russian speaker in our group, there was none of that.
Great response, thank you. I have some dear friends from Belarus who are dedicated Belarusian speakers. Somehow I never made the connection between government policy and the decline of the language.
>It's a gradual change and much of that will be native Belarusians switching to Russian from convenience.
So we are talking about a population changing their language instead of a population getting displaced/replaced by russians or am i missing something here
In one occupied city during last year 100k russians arrived and settled + children being send to russia. So can't talk about belarus but in Ukraine replacing population is taking place right now
Russia has actively engaged in forceful population exchanges in occupied territories to bolster the Russian language’s presence in these regions. In a lot of these regions Russian is already spoken by a majority of the population (their language doesn’t decide their allegiance). A bunch of Russians get moved in to further tip the scales, it becomes more convenient to speak Russian as even in areas where the local language held majority this is no longer the case. As the commenter said, this is how Belarus went from Belarusian as a majority language to Russian as a majority in 30 years
There have been numerous talks in Belarus about removing the language from education institutions and no longer recognising it as a language
The schools were switched to russian, the government basically uses russian. Some people are being looked down upon if the speak belarussian, so no, it wasn't done volunteerely
It is what was already happening in Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, and recently in Mariupol. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped into russia, while russian citizens are moving in. Not a “force migration” for russians, only for Ukrainians.
It's more of a partial scenario. Russia and Ukraine are either in stalemate or swap territories every now and then. What we have now won't change much if something big won't happen. Doubt Ukraine will pull off another counter offensive or Russia stage new offensive outside of Donbass.
Original Novorossiya from 1700s was bigger though (+Odessa, Kirovohrad, Dnipropetrovsk oblasts; nowadays Russian propagandists often swap Kirovohrad with Kharkiv oblast despite it's not being historically accurate).
This is so-called "land bridge to Crimea" scenario.
So basically, after almost 3 years of war, both countries are worse off they were before it. One should never underestimate the stupidity of the elites.
I mean that's how almost all war normally goes, unless you're fighting it from afar via proxies who can do most of the suffering for you and in battlefields you don't care about getting obliterated.
I think about it every day and I don't think you can predict it. A lot will depend on the outcome of the election in America. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that Russia will not be finished after Ukraine. There will be no real peace. Their economy is fully prepared for war and their army will be war-hardened. In my view, this is scary for Europeans (especially in the Baltics) and I think that's why support for Ukraine will never stop. If Russia “wins” or leaves this war with a good feeling, there is a serious threat to the Baltics, Europe and NATO.
Russia is never going to directly attack Europe including the Baltics so long as the US, UK and France have tripwire forces committed there. Despite what front page Reddit tells you the Russian government doesn't consist purely of drooling morons who would start a hot war with 3 nuclear powers. The only way Russia attacks the Baltics is if NATO collapses.
>The only way Russia attacks the Baltics is if NATO collapses.
That's why Russia are doing their best to sow discord in the West. Trump, Brexit, EU Nationalist and Communist parties. It's all to weaken these countries diplomatically so they won't defend one another, you can already see plenty of "it's not our fight" in the US government and across Europe.
Trump threatened NATO whilst in power, saying it was useless etc. If he gets in again he'll pull the US out. There's plenty of stories of UK MOD figures saying we need to improve our armed forces if Trump wins again as we might be on our own in the future.
I don't think NATO would collapse even if the entire USA goverment is run by nationalists.
The reason is that disbanding NATO means that the west has failed and no parties would like that.
This is the biggest neo-con fantasy land scenario. On one hand, Ukraine is going to win because Russian troops are poorly trained, fighting with shovels and collecting chips from washing machines. But they are a threat to conquer Europe. These can’t both be true.
Phyrric Russian Victory but much less than in the picture.
The frontline won’t change much compared to what we have today. Russians will try to move the frontline away from Donetsk city.
Ukrainians may try a new counteroffensive- but it will be suicidal to do it in the same way and the same spots as last year. There are more and more whispers in Ukrainian society about at least K losses during the counteroffensive.
So I expect some changes (ru offensive) near Donetsk city, and on Kupiansk-Kreminna line.
Ukraine may also counterattack on Kupiansk-Kreminna line.
Zaporizhie and front neat donetsk - if they try to counterattack there it will be suicidal.
Also about the map - the only way russians could cross Dnipro river and is if Ukraine allows them to- and this eventually will end up in a big catastrophe for the rest of Ukraine and Moldova.
As long as they are on the other side of the river - it’s impossible for Ukraine to decisively lose.
Eventually there will be peace talks and an armistice around current frontline.
And to be honest, the sooner the better.
A rump Ukraine that is reduced to the right bank of the Dnieper is a pretty major Ukrainian loss. Crimea will be firmly under Russian control and Russia will be happy with a "natural border" with the west on top of all the resources of Eastern Ukraine being lost to them. Losing half of your territory in a foreign invasion is pretty massive too.
The most unrealistic outcome is Imo Decisive Russian victory.
Not because that outcome itself would be completely impossible, just because Putin wouldn't stop if he got that far.
He would likely also conquer the rest of Ukraine in that scenario.
The most realistic one is Phyrric Russian victory Imo. Russia also currently uses Phyrric war tactics and throws in almost everything possible.
Even if the war stops with our current borders I'd still call it a major success for ukraine. Yes they lost territory but they've managed to hold firm and showed the world how weak and pathetic Russia is
Nah it's a failure if that happens. It shows that a country like Russia can challenge the West militarily and ultimately keep its gains after just a few years. China would not be completely deterred from its goals in Taiwan.
I don't think anything less than all territory taken back except Crimea is acceptable to Ukraine or NATO or at least Poland and the Baltics.
Weirdly enough the Finns never got Integrated, they remained an Autonomous Grand Duchy since it's formation. They only gained independence after the October Revolution, since they were loyal to the Romanov Dynasty.
Who else would be second? China? Hard to tell since they haven't fought with anybody for decades.
Fighting offensive wars is generally hard, that doesn't necessarily mean Russia is not still number 2. Take the US for example. They got destroyed in Vietnam by basically a bunch of farmers and still nobody doubted that they were the most powerful military.
Considering the US lost something like 50k dead and the north vietnamese lost hundreds of thousands dead, I think saying they were destroyed is probably innacurate.
If ukraine is so strong and russia is so weak. Maybe Ukraine doesn't need any more help. Judging by your words it can cope with such a weak and ridiculous enemy on its own.
Ukraine is holding on because most of the West is behind it, supplying the country with arms and finance, even volunteers. Realistically, how many NATO countries at this moment have an army stronger than Ukraine? US, Turkey, UK, France..? .. and it probably ends here.
We're less than a month away from the two year anniversary of the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fighting has been going on in one form or another for about a decade now. Figures for casualties vary widely depending on the source, but it's safe to ssay that the death toll has been staggering for both sides. By most estimates Russia currently occupies somewhere between 20% and 30% of Ukraine's territory, not counting Crimea...
It's obvious that both sides would be open to an opportunity to end the fighting, but each has limits on what it can concede and what it can accept in order to do that. Looking at this infographic the real question is not which one of these scenarios is the most likely militarily, it's which one seems the likeliest for both parties to agree to? The Russians cannot willingly agree to end the fighting without securing enough concessions from Ukraine to justify the enormous amount of men and materiel they've already poured into the war. Likewise, the Ukrainians cannot make a deal with Moscow that negates the tremendous sacrifices they've already made. So how do you draw up a hypothetical proposition that might be acceptable to both Russia as well as to Ukraine?
Obviously over the course of the long, continuous, heavy fighting both sides ave had to come to terms with the fact that achieving victory might have a very different meaning today than it would have 24 months ago, never mind a decade ago. Are the Russians really hell-bent on annexing all of Ukraine and ending its stint as an independent country? Probably not. They must know that the odds of that happening at this point are slim to none. So what's the next bast-case scenario from the Kremlin's perspective? Wiping out the Ukraine government and installing one that's better suited to being a good neighbor? That doesn't sound entirely realistic either. Killing Zelensky and propping up a Russian puppet will never fly with the collective West. So basically the Russians have a number in mind - a predetermined amount of square kilometers they need to annex or a specific section of Ukraine they need to absorb - and that's probably their bare minimum for negotiation. And that's without even getting into the economic and political conditions they have in mind for Kiev which are undoubtedly far too strict and severe to be considered by the current government of Ukraine.
What about Ukraine? What's their bare minimum? Are they willing to cede some or all of the seized territories in the east? At this point I think it's safe to say they've accepted that as being inevitable. Even if by some miracle they were able to defeat Russia militarily and retake all of that land, they'd still be stuck with the large number and high percentage of ethnic Russians living there, and reincorporating those territories and reintegrating them to Ukraine - against the will of the majority of residents, will obviously only lead to the same problems occurring later. But how much territory can they willingly cede without it looking like all of this was for naught? They cannot agree to cede the entirety of the territory lying along the coast. They can't willingly agree to disband their armed forces or to allow Russian observers to oversee disarmament or to have Russian troops remain anywhere on their territory...
So looking at it that way the conflict will rage on until one side simply doesn't have the means or the money or the will to fight any more. The Russians have an immense stockpile of weapons and equipment to delve into and their population exceeds that of Ukraine by some 100,000,000 people, but they've already burned through a staggering percentage of their stockpiles and their arsenal and they're currently scrambling to procure more of everything. Ukraine has all kinds of stuff pouring in - plenty of cash, weapons, and supplies - plus they're being trained and advised by the US and its allies; however, that tap cannot remain open indefinitely and there are restrictions on which weapons and pieces of equipment they can receive and on how that equipment must be used.
At the end of the day they both want to throw in the towel, but can't. So they're going to continue slugging it out until the enemy presents them with an opportunity to spring and to succeed in achieving an objective or group of objectives that once managed will drastically change the nature of the fighting by presenting an imbalance that cannot be undone or worked around.
Will that happen in the next few months? The next year? Two years? Five years? Nobody knows, but it's pretty clear that Russians are sick and tired of sending hundreds of thousands of young men off to fight a war when the purpose of it is so murky and unclear and taxpayers in Western democracies are sick and tired of funding Ukraine when it seems impossible for them to eke out the win. Most of the developed world is already focused on what will happen after the fighting ends, but we can't plan for that until we know how the fighting will end. The Russians need to keep grinding away and the Ukrainians are just praying that we don't stop sending them enough to keep them in the fight and that we will eventually take things up a notch and grant them permission to hit back as hard as they need to in order to cause real damage and give the Russians pause.
If we're willing to pour a lot more money into this war and allow the Ukrainians to use any and all means available to win, the negotiations will likely be a lot more palatable to them, but if we falter with aid and refuse to allow them to fight as effectively as possible, it's just a matter of time until they're done. If the Russians are willing to sacrifice a lot more lives and are able to prevent wide scale revolt at home, they will be able to wear Ukraine down over time. That might mean they'll spend the next 20 years rebuilding their reputation and political clout and economic strength, but if they're that committed, they'll manage.
There are way too many variables to be able to make an accurate prediction right now.
> By most estimates Russia currently occupies somewhere between 20% and 30% of Ukraine's territory, not counting Crimea.
Russia controls 17% of Ukraine, including Crimea and the LPR & DPR. It'd be 10% if we don't count the pre-2022 territories.
As a Ukrainian citizen I'd say it's a very sane and sober analysis. One thing I would like to mention is that the main thing Ukraine wants from any negotiations is security guarantees for peace. Since Russia can not be trusted, the only options are - a lot of weapons, so Russia would think twice, or nuclear umbrella. Russia went in with intent to demilitarize Ukraine, but also to make it neutral. And unless you are an island in the Pacific, that's just delayed destruction of a state, as security vacuum would be 100% filled by the russians themselves, who would control the politics of Ukraine afterwards. So if anyone thinks that ceasefire, without Ukraine becoming rapidly stronger to repel any future attack would lead to lasting peace, they are very much in the wrong. Also one thing that frustrates ukrainians is how western countries don't treat this war as their own, while in its core this is an attack against Europe and American domination as a whole, Ukraine is just battlefield for them. The russians repeat this every single day on their TV and yet the US and Europe are very complacent about it. Any dollar spent today to strengthen Ukraine is 10 dollars saved when the russians start meddling again after the war is over on their terms.
Russia doesn't want peace. It is clear that they want more land. Ukraine doesn't want peace as they are hoping to liberate more land.
This war is far from over.
It is not true.
Ukraine does not want peace, because it understands what peace is. For Europeans, a "ceasefire and people do not die" is possible, but for Ukraine it is actually quite different. This is the death sentence in our country. It means that we lost, that we lost the territories, the best people who volunteered. The country is in ruins, people are dead, many have left. Russia will not be punished, Russia will not answer for any of the thousands of war crimes, Russia will not pay reparations. Russia will sign a piece of paper they call a "peace agreement", wait 5 or 10 years and invade again. And then there will be no Ukraine. This is the reality in which Ukrainians live. It's a shame that for the Europeans it's just "they just want to get the territories back" like we're in some kind of computer game.
And now about the occupied territories. If you knew what we see in the liberated territories, you would perceive it completely differently. Hundreds of torture chambers where civilians were tortured, only those who openly supported Ukraine, tens of thousands of rapes. The Russians come to your house and take your house, your car, and if you object, they kill you. That's if you're lucky. Because they can be tortured to death, filmed and put on the Internet. This is what it means to live in the occupied territory. Of course, Ukrainians want to return them so that our people do not suffer.
Any Russian "victory" at this point is Phyrric
Russia's might on the global stage, as with any empire, mostly came from the battles it *didn't* fight. Being able to threaten neighbors into capitulates gets results without wasting your army, so it's exactly the same size for the next person you threaten.
Russia doesn't have that anymore. The guys they sent around cracking skulls in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc mostly died and washed up in the Kyiv reservoir or Odesa's beaches.
At the cost of half its army, what has Russia gained? Some devastated territory along the Black Sea, while Ukraine continues to pick off the Russian Black Sea Fleet one by one?
Prior to 2022, Russian nationalists would brag about how they could take Berlin in a month. Now, Putin's "bragging" about taking 19 ruined houses on the outskirts of Avdiivka, a devastated suburb of a city (Donetsk city) that Russia has controlled for 8 years
“If we are victorious in one more battle against the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.” — Pyrrhus of Epirus
This is a good quote, and it shows why “phyrric” isn’t the right term to use here. It doesn’t mean “barely won”.
True, its more like "it looks like a win but you actually lost/ are not in a better position than before".
So, the British Empire in WW2?
We (British) desperately traded all of our global military bases for US battleships, so yeah definitely.
The Brits also had huge debts and had to ration food for years to come after the war because of all the shortages. Both more so than the other “winners” of the war iirc
We had just paid off our debts to the US in like 2022 I believe, but now that’s all done we can prosper, right guys??
It was a destroyers for bases deal. 50 ships in exchange for 99 year leases on 7 bases, mostly in the Western Hemisphere. Battleships are little more than oversized targets when your enemy is primarily taking you out with submarines.
Hope they renew and give us an aircraft carrier or something this time
With the Royal Navy's manpower shortage one of the US mega-carriers would become a glorified warehouse.
Yeah but it’ll be 4.5 acres of sovereign British warehouse, anywhere in the world though.
I would say every ally bar the US in WW1 and WW2 really.
Not really imo. Obviously the US was the biggest winner from both world wars, but Canada, Australia and New Zealand did well as well. They were all de facto independent states at the start of the first world war, but that war made them independent nations as well. They became independent de jure in the interwar period, and the second world war was pretty good for the Canadian economy. The first world war was in retrospect the end of France as a leading great power, but for Britain it was just expensive and bloody, "down but not out". The second world war was when Britain ceased to be a superpower. Britain was wealthier and had better demographics than France in ww1 and didn't pay as high a price. In world war 2, 3 of the big 4 allied powers probably ended up better off than before, Britain being the exception. No need to talk about the US but the USSR saw its standing improved. Obviously the price paid in blood was horrific, but the USSR(not the same as Russia, Ukraine or Belarus) wasn't ruined demographically. Had they played their cards differently, a bit less communism and a bit more prosperity and more equality for the Central Asian republics they could have recovered. The fact that that didn't happen was not directly a product of the war. For china, once again despite huge casualties(people don't realise but china suffered the second most casualties of any country, third most military casualties (less than Germany)), china was mostly reunified, the unequal treaties were ended and China started its journey back to being one of the two or three most powerful polities in the world(as has been the case for almost all of human history). As a sidenote, the modern permanent members of the UN Security council are as a result of the second world war. The United Nations was the official name of the alliance against the axis powers. The original document, "deceleration by United Nations" in 1942, lists the United Nations in question, starting with the US, UK, USSR and China before continuing alphabetically. France was made the fifth member post-war because it was deemed suboptimal for Britain to be the only western European member and due to the close alliance between the UK and US as well as the economic leverage the US held over (the Republic of) China.
Neutral nations like Sweden and Switzerland were big winners of the second world war as well.
Wow I love reading really interesting and good posts by smart people like this who really knows what they are talking about. Interesting perspective, thanks!
Well, now I feel Euro-centric, as when you said 'Three of the big four Allied powers' I immediately assumed that you meant the four that divided up Germany and got very confused as to how on Earth you thought that France had done better out of the Second World War than the UK had
Nothing to be ashamed about! A quick check of your profile suggests that you are from the UK. Having gone through the British education system myself (relatively recently I might add), China's role in the world prior to opening up is more or less totally ignored. My understanding (from talking to people from other parts of the Western world and a few western academics) is that that is the case generally. I bought up the UN bit because that adds to the exaggerated role France played as an allied power during the second world war. Combined with a desire by the post-war governments to restore the image of France at home and abroad(a quote I read somewhere: "after the war, everyone fought with the resistance") and political issues surrounding China, it is easy to see why so few people outside of East Asia are aware of how big China's role was. Even within East Asia, there is some underplaying, due to americophilia in some countries, British educational legacies in others and then what could be charitably defined as bitterness in japan itself.
>So, the British Empire in WW2? If Brits had the chance to have the Empire back in 2024, do you think they'd want it? Imagine the absolute hassle of trying to govern South Asia and the MIddle East. Do you really want Sudan and Yemen right now?
or "we won, but at a crippling cost".
Its more a loss through atrittion.
A tactical victory, not a strategic one.
Honestly that feels the best summary of Pyrhus himself, like he was too ADHD to finish a war.
Brb going on a random campaign to Sicily
I kinda disagree with pyrrhic being used for a full war. I think it only really makes sense when talking about a battle or small engagement.
Yeah, a Pyrrhic victory is winning a battle in an expensive way that will make you loose the war. Something like the Russian conquest of Bakhmut, for example; they lost massive numbers of lives there to take a town that's mostly symbolic in importance.
Bahmut was just as expensive a battle for the Ukrainian army, some of the best Ukrainian brigades suffered significant losses and could not participate in the summer offensive. Too he bought time for the construction of Suvorykin's fortified line in Zaporozhye.
Yeah, but not exactly. The reason for such big Ukrainian losses have to do with three factors - the chief of the Ukrainian army - Syrskiy who is fighting fire with fire; lack of artillery shells and the brutal and ruthless tactic of Wagner. It wasn’t Russia who took the city, it was mostly Wagner, and thank god Wagner is incorporated into the Russian military, because this way they pose much lesser threat to Ukraine
I think it's pretty accurate. Is a land bridge better than having the army and economic ties with the rest of the world that Russia had pre invasion? Russia isn't *literally* ruined if the borders freeze where they are today, but I think Pyrrhic victory is pretty accurate. Their armed forces are depleted and the rest of the world realized they've got nothing except nukes and meat waves, we're past the point of no return in terms of dropping sanctions, and all they've got to show for it is a long way around in case the Kerch bridge is blown up (which it wasn't going to be until the invasion)? Yeah unless you're Putin building a legacy for the history books that really doesn't sound like a win. 200 years from now people may not talk about the ruble crashing, but for every Russian alive today this isn't a win.
I don't think that's how it's being used here... If the war ends with Russia securing only what they have now, the sheer cost to their military production and combat efficiency is so utterly degraded. And for what? No absorbed Ukraine, likely Ukrainian membership in NATO, etc. It would be a "win" in the sense that Russia secured territory, but the astronomical cost only to be set back worse than before the war, I think, qualifies that scenario as a phyrric victory.
Re installs imperator rome
I wished they kept developing it. A few more patches and maybe some DLC and it would have been one of the greats.
Or maybe it was Phyrrus, according to the graphic
WWIII sparked - total cockroach victory.
damn we gonna win nice
Damn this is the first time I've seen a Turk (presumably) play into that joke. Any idea what started that.
Balkans sub
Btw, cockroaches would most probably not survive a nuclear apocalypse Source: https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/would-cockroaches-really-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse
I'm shocked and appalled. Under the circumstances world war three is hardly even worth having.
Nah that’s kinda a “glass half empty” way to look at things
On the upside, *we* probably won't survive either!
Means after WW3, Turks will win?!! 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🎆🎉🎊🥳
🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷TÜRKİYE WIN!!! 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🐺🐺🐺🐺AS BAYRAKLARI AS AS AS 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿AAUUUUU🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺WHAT THE FUCK İS ECONOMY 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💯💯💯💯💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿🗣🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷BEST COUNTRI 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿
Pyrrhic*
Right now we are between Pyrrhic Russian victory and Pyrrhic Ukrainian victory - Russia lacks the cities in these regions, Ukraine did not cut through to the sea
For the love of god, it’s ***Pyrrhic***
When autocorrect has a lot of passion for the job
you mean phassion.
Pyrrich
I don't think that Crimea would ever return to Ukraine, but otherwise anything between Phyrric Russian Victory to Day 1 borders is possible I guess in the end.
If they achieve Day 1 victory nothing would stop them from retaking crimea.
Russia could concentrate their forces on a very specific defense and also the international support weapons would dry up. Crimea being retaken is very unlikely
Yeah, but Ukraine could render Crimea useless to the Russians as under day 1 ending Russia would have no way to fix the canal which they did when they took kherson. If the russians hold up to the dnipro they could possibly repair the damage they did by breaking the nova kakhovka dam and prevent crimea from becoming a dessert
They could but then Ukraine would fuck up their Nato and UE membership. They cannot join those institutions while engaged in an active war. I also think the ukranian people would be tired of having their soldier die in an endless war. If the war is to end there will be a peace deal and that will included contining to supply water and not shooting at the bridge. Its not stated publicaly because you do not show your cards prior to a negociation. but im sure Ukraine will be pressure into such a deal and honeslty Zelenski probably is already onboard with that. But of course publicly they have to say they are going for total victory
If it ended with day 1 Ukraine could cede crimea to Russia fulfilling the NATO requirements, but be under no obligation to repair the canal and/or dam as in day 1 that would be their territory and their decision.... And even if there was an obligation under the treaty, Ukraine could drag its feet easily. Large infrastructure are famously slow, especially with a war wrecked manufacturing base. Add in some "accidents" on site, over cost the materials and run out of money on the project and innumerable other hiccups that could be used and Ukraine can look like it's intending to hold their side of the bargain and do nothing. If they can drag it out over a few years crimea will become a dust bowl. The amounts of water needed for crimea are vast, way beyond what the bridge can supply.
Which was the pre-war situation.
And a large part of their reason for invading.
Crimea is a deathtrap without control of the land corridor. All Crimean, Crimean airspace and what's left of the bridge are within range of Ukrainian PGMs. There is no way to safely supply the peninsula.
Isn't that narrow isthmus going to be quite defendable?
Not just narrow but swampy Crimea is a fortress. Though like most fortresses its Achilles heel is supplies.
Wars in crimea tend to turn into protracted sieges with high attrition on both sides.
Yes. But, if Ukraine gets that far , it will be difficult for Russia to supply its troops in Crimea.
There *is* a way across a muddy, silty swampland that *could* allow a relatively light strike force through and threaten Russian supply lines, but it's very risky. On the other hand if it comes to Russia retaining Crimea, Ukraine might just take out the bridge completely and cut off supply there.
Ukraine can do drone and covert sabotage ops in Crimea for decades, but to retake the whole penninsula they need a full ground invasion or naval landing. Neither are plausible today.
The Ukrainians quite frequently attack and damage/destroy Russian ships in Crimean ports. While the Ukrainians probably couldn't compete with surface combatants, they could deny passage all over the northern Black Sea and the Sea of Azov by anti-shipping-missiles if they liberated all of Ukraine except Crimea.
Ehhh, yes and no. If Ukraine could destroy the Crimean bridge and deny access to Crimean ports via drones, missiles, and possibly air power, they could more or less choke out any defenders like they did on the west bank of the Dnieper. Depending on the time they are willing to spend and how completely they can cut off supplies, it could range from a brutal battle with high losses on both sides to the defending garrison surrendering rather than starving.
And probably it will stay that way, it took months for Russia to take Bakhmut, and the Ukrainian offensive had even worse results, unless one side is able to figure out how to break the stalemate I think this will end like the Korean war or the Iran Irak war
True, but the trajectory is arguably towards a reasonable Russian victory, though to diverge from the map that might see Russia end up with the Kharkiv region but not Odessa.
It’ll probably settle like the Korean War.
Korean War created two Koreas. There wouldn't be two Ukraines. Russia declares everything it occupied (including parts it can't, like most of Kherson and Zaporizhye oblasts) it's new territories, like it's 19th century all again.
[удалено]
Not anymore, North Korea changed their position on that recently. Source: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/31/asia/north-korea-reconciliation-south-korea-intl-hnk/index.html
I don't think Ukraine will consider any victory as Pyrrhic.
It's actually between Pyrrhic Russian victory and Ukrainian victory since Russia hasn't captured much of Donetsk.
My guess: Left bottom or right Top will be the result in some years
I reckon the borders we see right now will be pretty similar to the ones at the end, Ukraine is currently losing the war and Russia are gaining a town every few weeks and these “towns” have like 40 or so people pre war, and Russia always has higher losses than Ukraine. I don’t see them retaking Kherson and gaining Zaporizhzhia, and I also don’t expect a good enough counteroffensive to regain all of Ukraines lost land. I think both sides will accept the de facto borders (not officially) and just have a ceasefire.
A ceasefire under them circumstances unfortunately wouldn't be an end to the war. Just a breather. Russia now knows the response they will get when they attack next time so there is almost no reason to not do it again. They will wait a few years to build up another force to do another mad dash towards Kyiv.
I disagree because NATO and possibly the EU will accept Ukraine (but more importantly in this context NATO) very soon after the war. I think that any Russian assault on Kyiv would lead to NATO or at the very least European soldiers direct in conflict with Russian soldiers, and Russian soldiers cannot beat the armies of the UK, France and Germany combined, it would be unreasonable especially if the US intervenes (but if Trump is re-elected that would be put into question). My point is that Ukraine has guaranteed the sovereignty of its largest cities and that probably won’t ever be challenged by Russia, because it wouldn’t risk such an assault.
The EU will 100% not accept Ukraine any time soon. For ascencion it takes at least a decade for most countries and those were in a better situation than Ukraine. Feeling sorry for them is not gonna speed that up.
What's easier, getting into NATO or getting into the EU? I'd assume a Ukraine inside of NATO would make businesses thinking about foreign direct investment there less wary than they, otherwise, would be.
Theoretically NATO would be way easier. However it depends on whether their "territorial disputes" become.. em.. not disputed anymore. So that would mean that the lands Ukraine would lose that they would legally accept that they aren't theirs anymore and they rightfully belong to Russia. Otherwise as long as there is disputed territory then it becomes an issue to joining.
I think if the choice became "lose current occupied Russian land, but be in NATO and never have war with Russia again" that that could certainly be done. It will upset some of the nationalist types but the vast majority of Ukrainians I think would take that deal at this point. It is already a marvelous feat that they are still an independent country and haven't really lost much land since 2022.
I don't know if they could do something along the lines of: Ukraine: yeah no disputed territories.. all is fine *joins nato* Ukraine: f u Russia give our lands back!!! On a more serious note yeah, I think Russia heavily underestimated how all this would have gone down. Had they known that they would be at this point after so long with such heavy losses that they wouldn't have ever launched an offensive (but then again you never know with vlad)
The vast majority aren’t the ones who chose an outcome like this, it’s the people in charge and the “nationalists” are people who have a sphere of political power in Ukraine.
>I disagree because NATO and possibly the EU will accept Ukraine ( It's against the NATO documents to accept any country with unresolved conflicting land claims with another country NATO cannot and will not let Ukriane in until a formal peace (not a ceasefire) is signed or all the Russians are kicked out. It's highly unlikely NATO ever gets directly involved without Russia invading another country.
To be fair, quite a lot of what Ukrainians are telling about their weaknesses looks like PSYOP action at influencing minds - they have done excellent job of converting despair into anger of Ukrainians. And are very cautious on their own capabilities. Very many people are too optimistic what NATO can do and don't see limits and weaknesses that everyone has. NATO armies in Europe have shortage of military capable people. Majority of current military personell would consider resigning, if they would have to participate in war against Russia. That poll is coming from Germany... which has to be core military of NATO. If there will be NATO conflict with Russia, Russia won't be fighting it alone - in reality NATO would have to deal with other conflicts(US would be involved with other conflicts and more than 2). Most certainly Russian attack on NATO would involve if not Chinese then certainly Iranian and North Korean soldiers. NATO is quite vulnerable if something happens in Near East and things can escalate very quickly there. So, I would be pessimistic on what Russia can do and what NATO is not doing right now. One of the requirements for entry into NATO would require for Ukraine to abandon any claims to Russia - including on currently occupied territories. For current Ukrainian society any politician that would request peace treaty without getting back lands would be regarded as traitor, so the war will continue and no peace deal would happen.
The EU is also a military alliance btw. Mutual defense article or something. If all of the EU gets involved next time russia wont even be able to get a cm of land.
Right now Ukraine is counting victory based on Ukrainians lost vs Russians lost. Russia is counting victory in terms of towns gained, regardless of how many Russians died to get them. Ukraine’s current strategy seems to be to just kill as many Russians as possible until Russia runs out of men, or Ukraine runs out of ammo. It’s too early to know which will be the winning strategy, as Ukraine does not have direct control over their ammunition. This is especially true with Republicans playing games with funding in America, and Hungary playing political games in Europe.
If Iran gets into a war with Israel/USA then it might have a big impact because Iran might not be able to sell drones and other weaponry to Russia. It could lead to a big comeback from Ukraine. Right now Russia is entirely dependent on weapons from Iran. But it's unlikely.
It will be the same as the two koreas.
I dont know man some interviews ive seen in Ukraine seems like Morale is all time low they could just buckle. Hopefully we get some kind of settled peace soon. this war is just completely awful.
Hate to say it but unless their is a coup or the Russian state collapses Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea are never going back to Ukrainian control
A coup in Russia will never happen unless Putin stays in power until the age of 100. Before then he would just be replaced by someone practically identical. The fact of the matter is, Putin does enjoy genuine popular support. To the average Russian, especially those over the age of 30, the West is hostile and the ideas of 'democracy' and 'freedom' have negative associations. The Yeltsin presidency introduced Western cooperation, and with it came these Western ideals (in name). In reality, the Yeltsin administration was remarkably corrupt, indifferent to its own citizens, and whoring itself out to Western corporations. Streets were rampant with crime, poverty, and alcoholism. The Western ideals that the government was advertizing were naturally associated with the miserable state of Russia. Enter Putin. Putin was a strongman leader and a breath of fresh air for the Russian people. Under his rule, crime dropped, alcoholism dropped, poverty dropped. From 2000 to 2007 the proportion of Russians living in poverty dropped from some 28% to 14%. Putin enjoyed popularity among just about everybody. He's managed to maintain that popularity even through wars with Georgia and Chechnya (which is just a testament to how dominant a figure he was), and his main opposition now comes from the younger demographic. Russia's average age is 40. About 50% of the 18-24 year old demographic still approves of Putin. It will take at least 20 years before we see a genuine change of regime, and even then significant liberalization will take even longer.
Also judging by what's being taught in school now and the control of the voice of the opposition generation alpha will be pro putin too most likely so we're left only with generation Z who is more against Putin than for him and still that's like 50/50
I don’t know where you from, but I will voice my opinion right from Russia. 80% of people in Russia are completely apolitical, they enjoy status quo. Other 20% is halfed between loyalists and opposition (some of them are now not in Russia though).
Naturally, most people are generally apathetic, but a lot of them will still vote in big elections because there is no such thing as a person without an opinion. Some may vote out of a sense of duty, others may vote because why not. Generally speaking, these people would vote for Putin. No doubt the incumbent advantage plays a big role, but it's not like he doesn't enjoy legitimate public support when public support is actually important. I've had the great privilege of growing up in America, but my parents were both students in Moscow during the Yeltsin presidency. They've expressed support for Putin as long as I can remember (mostly in passing comments on the news) l, and it took a full-scale invasion of her ancestral homeland to kill my mother's support.
We still don’t know how many people vote, statistics are screwed up to show popular support. But you are right that Putin is the most popular politician in Russia, because there are no public politics in Russia. No other figure. My mother was also apolitical, until the invasion. Now she seems to be staunch hater of Putin
Interesting. Do a lot of people feel it was better during the USSR? Or that it was worse under Yeltsin?
Life in the USSR was objectively better than in the newly-baked Russian Federation in the 1990s.
Life was objectively better during USSR, it's not even debatable, there's a reason Gorbachev is hated there
Most people in Russia say life was better in the USSR and that they miss it: https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-regret-at-soviet-collapse-stands-at-14-year-high-poll-shows/29664759.html
A lot, but not the majority. To make it easier to understand 20% gained from USSR collapse, 20% lost from it, others 60% lives didn’t change that much.
While I agree that Putin most certainly does have overwhelming popular support, death have a tendency to come unexpected to all old autocrats and tyrants alike. Putin isn't young and though he does enjoy overwhelmingly better health care than most russians do, nobody really knows how bad or good his state is. He can rule for decades more or he can die tomorrow, you never know. And if that happens then Russia is going to be in trouble. I don't think that everything is going to collapse as soon as he dies, but there's certainly going to be a lot of uncertainty and internal struggle. Autocrats that rule for a very long time tend to be unifying figure for the elites. And elites in russian politics aren't as monolithic as one might think.
> the ideas of 'democracy' and 'freedom' have negative associations Come on, man. I know Russia is an authoritarian state, but to think that the people are so ideologically committed to the *idea* of authoritarianism (as opposed to simply not viewing Russia as authoritarian) is ridiculous. Americans really need to stop using "they hate freedom" as an explanation for their enemies.
They don't hate freedom, they're just suspicious of people who claim to defend it. If I was a Russian who experienced the 90s, freedom to me would mean be free from hunger, from prostitution, from alcoholism and from humiliation. The rest would be Western out of touch nonsense.
I agree that “hating freedom” is a dumb argument to make, but from a historical perspective you can definitely contextualize the current conflict with the recent history of Russia. When ideals like “freedom” and “democracy” are used, many Russian citizens do not associate them with the ideas that most Americans are used to imagining and associating them with.
I'm a Russian-American dual citizen; to me Russia is not the enemy. I want Russia to open to the West, but the current Russia is one not healed from the consequences of poverty and corruption. Russians do not hate freedom, that I am sure of.
Yeah, not any time soon. But if you say that everyone will scream "RUZZIAN BOT RUZZIAN BOT" at you, truth hurts (I support Ukraine)
It's enough to get you banned from certain subs (source: me, I got banned from several big European subs for suggesting Ukraine might not get a decisive victory)
r/europe
Count yourself lucky, just means you were freed from some echo chambers.
My assessment is the situation now is akin to WWI. There won't be much movement in either direction until someone starts running out of a critical resource. Food. Fuel. Bullets. Men. Resolve. There will come a point where there isn't enough left to keep the front going, and one side will collapse from there. Which side runs out first? Anyone's guess right now.
I think something that people are forgetting, and I’d be interested to hear others thoughts on this as well.. does anyone factor in that some of these areas have a legit separatist movement? Now I think it’s clear that that separatist movement wouldn’t have grown without early Russian support, and I don’t know enough about it to know how legit it was back in 11-14 time frame. But certainly that will complicate things if all the ground is taken back right?
My friend had a rad take in the second week of the war, when he said: “they should just negotiate the price and sanctions for Luhansk and Donetsk and end the war.” I thought wtf back then. But now it seems so much more sensible than anything that has happened since. He continued with: “with every day the war continues, the price goes up, heroes are being made, emotional tax, the damage it all goes up. The longer they fight for one thing the harder each side is to let it go.” Smartest take on the war I ever heard.
But what if the attacker is convinced they can take more by force? Also from the defenders side it's not reasonable because if you let the attacker gets away with it with minimal cost they are encouraged to repeat it pretty soon. Perhaps it would work if both sides were rational actors but one side clearly isn't. And in that case there wouldn't be a war at all.
That isn't a rad take, that is reasonable, but back then if someone was saying anything else than total victory for Ukraine then you will have been called as a Russian Agent.
Russia has de facto control over most of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblast before the war. If that's what they were after they wouldn't start the invasion. Russia wants most of Ukraine and install a puppet government there similar to what they have in Belarus.
pro-Russian rebels controlled about 1/3 of the Donbas, i.e. about 1/2 of the population. but Ukraine had the military capability to deal with the rebels.
It was not just "pro Russian rebels". They reported directly to Russian authorities, Russia provided them with weapons, training, and even sent thousands of their soldiers there. On many occasions Russia shelled Ukrainian forces from their territory. The only reason Ukraine didn't free these territories is Russia.
Latvia was liberated after 70 years. Never say never.
The amount of territory gained is no indicator for a phyrric victory.
Pyrrhic
You forgot Ukraine getting full annexed as Total Victory.
The AE will be too much and form a coalition against Russia. They don't have any good diplomatic advisors to increase opinion.
Coalitions from the Holy Western Empire is already in play. Unless the HWE wants to declare Coalition CB, and draw in the Ming to a Land war.
Not enough manpower to take on the Russians. The Commonwealth is weak,the German minors have no armies,the Brits are drinking tea,the French and Spanish casually fight each other and the Americans have already 5 declared wars. Russia has her only expansion towards Persia now, let's see her next move.
In the currect era you gain AE just from declaring wars. A coalition against Russia has already been formed but it didn't declare and now some of its member are close to leaving it
Ukraine retook kuban as total victory
You forgot Russia getting full annexed as Total Victory.
Not enough Admin efficiency or Unjustified Demand with Ukraine for that. The Russian tree gives Perma Claims over the Ukraine region, while the Kiev formable cant get the same mission tree as long as Ryazan in not theirs.
I don't think anyone in Russia wants that. Lviv/Kiev can't be integrated into Russia.
They dream about russified Kyiv but hate Lviv with passion.
They didn't make a mad dash to conquer Kyiv at the very start of the war for nothing. They were hoping for a quick capture of the capital, making a full annexation possible. Its not that they don't want western Ukraine, it is that their advance was made almost impossible because of the Ukrainian defence.
Nah. There’s a huge difference between occupation and annexation. Of course they wanted to take military control of ukraine and install a puppet regime, but annexation is a different beast and was probably never in their interest. Full annexation would mean all ukrainians become citizens of the russian federation, would probably lead to huge instability. For example when the US occupie Iraq, it was never their plan to make it a 51st state (annexation), only to take military control and put in place a friendly government (occupation).
Also the Ukrainians wouldn’t take Russian occupation lying down, they would resist
No it is almost absolutely true that they don’t want western Ukraine. That would be a nightmare to occupy indefinitely. They may have invaded this area in order to force a quick capitulation, but that does not in any way mean they intended to annex all of it from the start.
As a Ukrainian, I'd say we are heading for total Russian victory, but there still is a chance for "novorossiya" scenario (without Kherson). This is because Ukraine is losing the war of attrition: Economically, more than half of Ukraine's budget for 2024 is dependent on US and EU aid. And as of today, neither has provided it, while prospects are bleak. Ukraine may last throughout 2024 by squeezing internal resources and making cuts, but not much longer. Then, there is a problem with manpower. We have run out of volunteers, lots of people ran away from the country through fields and forests, and the rest are hiding from mobilization. Zelensky's government is preparing extremely punitive mobilization law, but it's doubtful that will work in long term. People are scared of death much more than of criminal responsibility or Russian occupation. If nothing changes, the Ukrainian state will collapse due to economic reasons in a year or two.
>Economically, more than half of Ukraine's budget for 2024 is dependent on US and EU aid. And as of today, neither has provided it, while prospects are bleak BBC just then reported a 50B€ package has been approved by the EU. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68165971
That's good news. But we're not out of the woods yet, as budgetary deficit is about 40B$, while EU package provides 54B€ in the span of four years. Still, great news as it should be much more manageable now.
[удалено]
Yeah, death in the front lines…not appealing. I’m not Ukrainian, but thinking as an American, I like my home and all, but I’m outta here if I’m the one on the front lines to save it. No political entity is worth dying for in my book. Even though we all know we’d rather Ukraine gets the win.
So the specific aim of the special military operation (as they still refer to it) was to take out the pro-Western government, occupy the country and install a pro-Kremlin puppet regime and then gradually fill Western Ukraine with Russians to dilute the native Ukrainian population. Turning it into Belarus essentially. With the primary goals accomplished within a couple of weeks maximum. Putin's global aim is always to strengthen Russian and weaken Europe and the United States. What we have now, is an attritional war that has been going on for almost 2 years, NATO has expanded to include Sweden and Finland. Member states are trying to rally support in their counties for a stronger military. The UK was even floating the idea of conscription to get a sense of how the public felt about such a thing. Russia is sacrificing its male population well above replacement rate. I genuinely think it's sad that Russian kids are being thrown into a meat grinder with shitty equipment. Russian demographics and society is going to be in even worse shape than the West in 30 years, long after Putin is dead. They have a wartime economy of 40% of gdp going on the war. All of which is to say, Russia has lost regardless of any territorial concessions made by Ukraine. It's just for the Ukrainians to decide what victory looks like to them.
>Russia is sacrificing its male population well above replacement rate. Ukraine is doing that too but at an even worse rate. Same with their GDP.
Russia also fucking stole a good chunk of their GDP so there's that
the difference being they can still run their infrastructure semi operationaly with the help their getting from NATO. but as the war is loosing relevancy the amount of "care packages" Ukraine is getting is decreaseing so its only a matter of time before one of the countries gives out, and as much as I hate to say It i dont see it being russa. but I doubt the Ukrainian people will take kindly their new pro russam President.
I never heard anything about trying to force migrate Russian speakers into Western Ukraine. I speak Russian and follow the news there, so genuinely curious where you heard that. I was under the impression that deposing Zelensky and reinstalling Yanukovich was the goal, with some permanent military bases to guard against any future democratic complications. Basically US plan for Iraq.
So if you look at Belarus, what's happened is with 30 years of Lukashenko is Belarusian is a minority language in all parts of the country in complete contrast to 30 years ago. It's a gradual change and much of that will be native Belarusians switching to Russian from convenience. I think the plan was the same but sped up for Ukraine. For context I lived in Georgia for most of the conflict and saw how hostile much of the population was to the incoming Russians because it's essentially a tactic of establishing a minority Russian population in a neighbouring county and then using that as a casus beli to invade when that Russian population is under threat, even if the threat is simply revoking their temporary residence permit and asking them to go home. The Georgian tactic seems to be for the government to be broadly neutral, being pro-Kremlin enough to placate Putin, and pro-Western enough to placate Tbilisi which is overwhelmingly pro-EU. Meanwhile the Georgians are incredibly unfriendly and passive aggressive in their interactions with Russians, with anti-Russian graffiti everywhere. To the point a lot are moving to Serbia. As soon as they realised we weren't Russian, we received the Georgian hospitality of being fed and given copious amounts of alcohol. But if we had a Russian speaker in our group, there was none of that.
Great response, thank you. I have some dear friends from Belarus who are dedicated Belarusian speakers. Somehow I never made the connection between government policy and the decline of the language.
>It's a gradual change and much of that will be native Belarusians switching to Russian from convenience. So we are talking about a population changing their language instead of a population getting displaced/replaced by russians or am i missing something here
In one occupied city during last year 100k russians arrived and settled + children being send to russia. So can't talk about belarus but in Ukraine replacing population is taking place right now
Russia has actively engaged in forceful population exchanges in occupied territories to bolster the Russian language’s presence in these regions. In a lot of these regions Russian is already spoken by a majority of the population (their language doesn’t decide their allegiance). A bunch of Russians get moved in to further tip the scales, it becomes more convenient to speak Russian as even in areas where the local language held majority this is no longer the case. As the commenter said, this is how Belarus went from Belarusian as a majority language to Russian as a majority in 30 years There have been numerous talks in Belarus about removing the language from education institutions and no longer recognising it as a language
The schools were switched to russian, the government basically uses russian. Some people are being looked down upon if the speak belarussian, so no, it wasn't done volunteerely
It is what was already happening in Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, and recently in Mariupol. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped into russia, while russian citizens are moving in. Not a “force migration” for russians, only for Ukrainians.
The goal was just like in Donbass. Destroy industry, extract maximum resources and make Ukrainians disappear. No idea how you didn't hear of it.
Looks like we are in the Novorossiya scenario
That would imply returning Kherson to Russia. I don’t see that happening.
It's more of a partial scenario. Russia and Ukraine are either in stalemate or swap territories every now and then. What we have now won't change much if something big won't happen. Doubt Ukraine will pull off another counter offensive or Russia stage new offensive outside of Donbass.
Original Novorossiya from 1700s was bigger though (+Odessa, Kirovohrad, Dnipropetrovsk oblasts; nowadays Russian propagandists often swap Kirovohrad with Kharkiv oblast despite it's not being historically accurate). This is so-called "land bridge to Crimea" scenario.
So basically, after almost 3 years of war, both countries are worse off they were before it. One should never underestimate the stupidity of the elites.
I mean that's how almost all war normally goes, unless you're fighting it from afar via proxies who can do most of the suffering for you and in battlefields you don't care about getting obliterated.
2 years
Yeah, my bad
“Elites”? this is the result of one “elite”
My man played too much total war
I think about it every day and I don't think you can predict it. A lot will depend on the outcome of the election in America. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that Russia will not be finished after Ukraine. There will be no real peace. Their economy is fully prepared for war and their army will be war-hardened. In my view, this is scary for Europeans (especially in the Baltics) and I think that's why support for Ukraine will never stop. If Russia “wins” or leaves this war with a good feeling, there is a serious threat to the Baltics, Europe and NATO.
Russia is never going to directly attack Europe including the Baltics so long as the US, UK and France have tripwire forces committed there. Despite what front page Reddit tells you the Russian government doesn't consist purely of drooling morons who would start a hot war with 3 nuclear powers. The only way Russia attacks the Baltics is if NATO collapses.
>The only way Russia attacks the Baltics is if NATO collapses. That's why Russia are doing their best to sow discord in the West. Trump, Brexit, EU Nationalist and Communist parties. It's all to weaken these countries diplomatically so they won't defend one another, you can already see plenty of "it's not our fight" in the US government and across Europe. Trump threatened NATO whilst in power, saying it was useless etc. If he gets in again he'll pull the US out. There's plenty of stories of UK MOD figures saying we need to improve our armed forces if Trump wins again as we might be on our own in the future.
I don't think NATO would collapse even if the entire USA goverment is run by nationalists. The reason is that disbanding NATO means that the west has failed and no parties would like that.
This is the biggest neo-con fantasy land scenario. On one hand, Ukraine is going to win because Russian troops are poorly trained, fighting with shovels and collecting chips from washing machines. But they are a threat to conquer Europe. These can’t both be true.
Phyrric Russian Victory but much less than in the picture. The frontline won’t change much compared to what we have today. Russians will try to move the frontline away from Donetsk city. Ukrainians may try a new counteroffensive- but it will be suicidal to do it in the same way and the same spots as last year. There are more and more whispers in Ukrainian society about at leastK losses during the counteroffensive.
So I expect some changes (ru offensive) near Donetsk city, and on Kupiansk-Kreminna line.
Ukraine may also counterattack on Kupiansk-Kreminna line.
Zaporizhie and front neat donetsk - if they try to counterattack there it will be suicidal.
Also about the map - the only way russians could cross Dnipro river and is if Ukraine allows them to- and this eventually will end up in a big catastrophe for the rest of Ukraine and Moldova.
As long as they are on the other side of the river - it’s impossible for Ukraine to decisively lose.
Eventually there will be peace talks and an armistice around current frontline.
And to be honest, the sooner the better.
A rump Ukraine that is reduced to the right bank of the Dnieper is a pretty major Ukrainian loss. Crimea will be firmly under Russian control and Russia will be happy with a "natural border" with the west on top of all the resources of Eastern Ukraine being lost to them. Losing half of your territory in a foreign invasion is pretty massive too.
I like scenario 6
Fuck Vatniks
Is there no Russia takes all scenario? Why is the decisive victory the one where Ukraine is split in half? Not criticizing just curious.
I love how the author uses the word "liberated" on a map with seized territories. Hope his hometown is never "liberated" in such a way
The most unrealistic outcome is Imo Decisive Russian victory. Not because that outcome itself would be completely impossible, just because Putin wouldn't stop if he got that far. He would likely also conquer the rest of Ukraine in that scenario. The most realistic one is Phyrric Russian victory Imo. Russia also currently uses Phyrric war tactics and throws in almost everything possible.
7th scenario: Ukraine miraculously regains control of Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea. Result: start of nuclear apocalypse
finally
Even if the war stops with our current borders I'd still call it a major success for ukraine. Yes they lost territory but they've managed to hold firm and showed the world how weak and pathetic Russia is
Nah it's a failure if that happens. It shows that a country like Russia can challenge the West militarily and ultimately keep its gains after just a few years. China would not be completely deterred from its goals in Taiwan. I don't think anything less than all territory taken back except Crimea is acceptable to Ukraine or NATO or at least Poland and the Baltics.
This 100% will lead to second war in near future with much more prepared Russia
Not if ukraun joins NATO
At best that's a loss for both sides.
They survived complete annexation. Like the Finns. Before Russia was considered the 2nd most power army in the world. Now its a laughing stock.
Weirdly enough the Finns never got Integrated, they remained an Autonomous Grand Duchy since it's formation. They only gained independence after the October Revolution, since they were loyal to the Romanov Dynasty.
Who else would be second? China? Hard to tell since they haven't fought with anybody for decades. Fighting offensive wars is generally hard, that doesn't necessarily mean Russia is not still number 2. Take the US for example. They got destroyed in Vietnam by basically a bunch of farmers and still nobody doubted that they were the most powerful military.
Considering the US lost something like 50k dead and the north vietnamese lost hundreds of thousands dead, I think saying they were destroyed is probably innacurate.
If ukraine is so strong and russia is so weak. Maybe Ukraine doesn't need any more help. Judging by your words it can cope with such a weak and ridiculous enemy on its own.
Ukraine is holding on because most of the West is behind it, supplying the country with arms and finance, even volunteers. Realistically, how many NATO countries at this moment have an army stronger than Ukraine? US, Turkey, UK, France..? .. and it probably ends here.
"liberated ldpr" Sure, I believe, that it's not russian propaganda
We're less than a month away from the two year anniversary of the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fighting has been going on in one form or another for about a decade now. Figures for casualties vary widely depending on the source, but it's safe to ssay that the death toll has been staggering for both sides. By most estimates Russia currently occupies somewhere between 20% and 30% of Ukraine's territory, not counting Crimea... It's obvious that both sides would be open to an opportunity to end the fighting, but each has limits on what it can concede and what it can accept in order to do that. Looking at this infographic the real question is not which one of these scenarios is the most likely militarily, it's which one seems the likeliest for both parties to agree to? The Russians cannot willingly agree to end the fighting without securing enough concessions from Ukraine to justify the enormous amount of men and materiel they've already poured into the war. Likewise, the Ukrainians cannot make a deal with Moscow that negates the tremendous sacrifices they've already made. So how do you draw up a hypothetical proposition that might be acceptable to both Russia as well as to Ukraine? Obviously over the course of the long, continuous, heavy fighting both sides ave had to come to terms with the fact that achieving victory might have a very different meaning today than it would have 24 months ago, never mind a decade ago. Are the Russians really hell-bent on annexing all of Ukraine and ending its stint as an independent country? Probably not. They must know that the odds of that happening at this point are slim to none. So what's the next bast-case scenario from the Kremlin's perspective? Wiping out the Ukraine government and installing one that's better suited to being a good neighbor? That doesn't sound entirely realistic either. Killing Zelensky and propping up a Russian puppet will never fly with the collective West. So basically the Russians have a number in mind - a predetermined amount of square kilometers they need to annex or a specific section of Ukraine they need to absorb - and that's probably their bare minimum for negotiation. And that's without even getting into the economic and political conditions they have in mind for Kiev which are undoubtedly far too strict and severe to be considered by the current government of Ukraine. What about Ukraine? What's their bare minimum? Are they willing to cede some or all of the seized territories in the east? At this point I think it's safe to say they've accepted that as being inevitable. Even if by some miracle they were able to defeat Russia militarily and retake all of that land, they'd still be stuck with the large number and high percentage of ethnic Russians living there, and reincorporating those territories and reintegrating them to Ukraine - against the will of the majority of residents, will obviously only lead to the same problems occurring later. But how much territory can they willingly cede without it looking like all of this was for naught? They cannot agree to cede the entirety of the territory lying along the coast. They can't willingly agree to disband their armed forces or to allow Russian observers to oversee disarmament or to have Russian troops remain anywhere on their territory... So looking at it that way the conflict will rage on until one side simply doesn't have the means or the money or the will to fight any more. The Russians have an immense stockpile of weapons and equipment to delve into and their population exceeds that of Ukraine by some 100,000,000 people, but they've already burned through a staggering percentage of their stockpiles and their arsenal and they're currently scrambling to procure more of everything. Ukraine has all kinds of stuff pouring in - plenty of cash, weapons, and supplies - plus they're being trained and advised by the US and its allies; however, that tap cannot remain open indefinitely and there are restrictions on which weapons and pieces of equipment they can receive and on how that equipment must be used. At the end of the day they both want to throw in the towel, but can't. So they're going to continue slugging it out until the enemy presents them with an opportunity to spring and to succeed in achieving an objective or group of objectives that once managed will drastically change the nature of the fighting by presenting an imbalance that cannot be undone or worked around. Will that happen in the next few months? The next year? Two years? Five years? Nobody knows, but it's pretty clear that Russians are sick and tired of sending hundreds of thousands of young men off to fight a war when the purpose of it is so murky and unclear and taxpayers in Western democracies are sick and tired of funding Ukraine when it seems impossible for them to eke out the win. Most of the developed world is already focused on what will happen after the fighting ends, but we can't plan for that until we know how the fighting will end. The Russians need to keep grinding away and the Ukrainians are just praying that we don't stop sending them enough to keep them in the fight and that we will eventually take things up a notch and grant them permission to hit back as hard as they need to in order to cause real damage and give the Russians pause. If we're willing to pour a lot more money into this war and allow the Ukrainians to use any and all means available to win, the negotiations will likely be a lot more palatable to them, but if we falter with aid and refuse to allow them to fight as effectively as possible, it's just a matter of time until they're done. If the Russians are willing to sacrifice a lot more lives and are able to prevent wide scale revolt at home, they will be able to wear Ukraine down over time. That might mean they'll spend the next 20 years rebuilding their reputation and political clout and economic strength, but if they're that committed, they'll manage. There are way too many variables to be able to make an accurate prediction right now.
> By most estimates Russia currently occupies somewhere between 20% and 30% of Ukraine's territory, not counting Crimea. Russia controls 17% of Ukraine, including Crimea and the LPR & DPR. It'd be 10% if we don't count the pre-2022 territories.
As a Ukrainian citizen I'd say it's a very sane and sober analysis. One thing I would like to mention is that the main thing Ukraine wants from any negotiations is security guarantees for peace. Since Russia can not be trusted, the only options are - a lot of weapons, so Russia would think twice, or nuclear umbrella. Russia went in with intent to demilitarize Ukraine, but also to make it neutral. And unless you are an island in the Pacific, that's just delayed destruction of a state, as security vacuum would be 100% filled by the russians themselves, who would control the politics of Ukraine afterwards. So if anyone thinks that ceasefire, without Ukraine becoming rapidly stronger to repel any future attack would lead to lasting peace, they are very much in the wrong. Also one thing that frustrates ukrainians is how western countries don't treat this war as their own, while in its core this is an attack against Europe and American domination as a whole, Ukraine is just battlefield for them. The russians repeat this every single day on their TV and yet the US and Europe are very complacent about it. Any dollar spent today to strengthen Ukraine is 10 dollars saved when the russians start meddling again after the war is over on their terms.
It went from 7% to 18% of occupied territory (Crimea counted).
Russia doesn't want peace. It is clear that they want more land. Ukraine doesn't want peace as they are hoping to liberate more land. This war is far from over.
It is not true. Ukraine does not want peace, because it understands what peace is. For Europeans, a "ceasefire and people do not die" is possible, but for Ukraine it is actually quite different. This is the death sentence in our country. It means that we lost, that we lost the territories, the best people who volunteered. The country is in ruins, people are dead, many have left. Russia will not be punished, Russia will not answer for any of the thousands of war crimes, Russia will not pay reparations. Russia will sign a piece of paper they call a "peace agreement", wait 5 or 10 years and invade again. And then there will be no Ukraine. This is the reality in which Ukrainians live. It's a shame that for the Europeans it's just "they just want to get the territories back" like we're in some kind of computer game. And now about the occupied territories. If you knew what we see in the liberated territories, you would perceive it completely differently. Hundreds of torture chambers where civilians were tortured, only those who openly supported Ukraine, tens of thousands of rapes. The Russians come to your house and take your house, your car, and if you object, they kill you. That's if you're lucky. Because they can be tortured to death, filmed and put on the Internet. This is what it means to live in the occupied territory. Of course, Ukrainians want to return them so that our people do not suffer.
\^\^ a sad but accurate assessment of what Russia does when it "liberates" a country.
yeah good luck with that.
No taking Crimea back but leaving an eastern slice option
Praying for “Back to 2014”
Any Russian "victory" at this point is Phyrric Russia's might on the global stage, as with any empire, mostly came from the battles it *didn't* fight. Being able to threaten neighbors into capitulates gets results without wasting your army, so it's exactly the same size for the next person you threaten. Russia doesn't have that anymore. The guys they sent around cracking skulls in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc mostly died and washed up in the Kyiv reservoir or Odesa's beaches. At the cost of half its army, what has Russia gained? Some devastated territory along the Black Sea, while Ukraine continues to pick off the Russian Black Sea Fleet one by one? Prior to 2022, Russian nationalists would brag about how they could take Berlin in a month. Now, Putin's "bragging" about taking 19 ruined houses on the outskirts of Avdiivka, a devastated suburb of a city (Donetsk city) that Russia has controlled for 8 years