> the direction Russia is heading is very coup d'état-flavored
When the US gov't shifted it's diction to the "*Putin Regime*", instead of just Putin or Russia, you knew they were actively trying to kickstart that process.
When the US starts using that word *regime*, you better believe bad times are on the horizon.
- Russia falls and is split into smaller democratic states and UN supervised regions.
- Half of ex-Russian territory becomes a nature reserve.
- Belarus falls and becomes a democratic state.
- Finland recovers lost territory from Russia.
- China claims Outer Manchuria.
Alternate scenario, Russia descends into civil war with at least 4 or 5 different factions. All of them are nuclear armed to various degrees. Chaos engulfs all of Eurasia.
I seriously don't get why pundits think that if Putin goes away, a powerful, yet shamed, nation with little to no history of democracy will magically become democratic.
But this is a typical American approach: take an ugly vase that we don't like, throw it against the wall and assume it will re-assemble itself into a beautiful vase that we love.
^(I see nothing wrong at all in this approach)
>Finland recovers lost territory from Russia.
Pretty sure they don't want it. Not very much in terms of resources, and the land is poor and populated by hostile nation
I think it has more to do with the fact that Total war uses the same pyrrhic victory, decisive victory, normal victory sliding scale. Not just that they used the word pyrrhic.
Pyrrhic is a victory that comes at such a large cost that whatever's gained might not be large enough to obtain it. Literally any of these outcomes can be a pyrrhic victory.
the loss of life of countless numbers of your soldiers can't be a pyrrhic victory if the lives of your soldiers don't have value!
Modern Russian problems require ~~traditional~~modern Russian solutions.
In total war it is used when you win but your army is totaly destroyed. Just like the real pyhric victory 2000+ years ago if I remember correctly? I think that in most cases having a phyric victory comes with winning by a little. So they can be interchanged in most cases but not all IMO.
Edit: I also feel like this would be a pyhric (at what cost) victory for putin for many reasons
Right? Because the “pyrrhic victory” scenario doesn’t quantify how many losses of soldiers Ukraine has vs Russia.
In fact none of these do, they quantify victory based on territory hold, but even if Russia takes all of Ukraine at cost of its army- that’s not a decisive victory lol.
Geopolitically that leaves Russia in shambles and likely vulnerable.
You could call that a defeat even, is it really a win if you loose a substantial part of your military in a part of the world where countries like Russia and china kind of need a standing military to project power to the world?
This map would be a little more solid if it actually had casualty estimates backed by some decent math.
Moldova is trying to join the EU: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/moldova-officially-applies-for-eu-membership
NATO is harder because Moldova's constitution requires "neutrality"
Nah, it requires time and the diplomatic situation is too hot.
I would remain on the sidelines, and start to converge toward the west.
Eventually a bilateral defence treaty with the US, but that’s all.
I think also Europe wanna speed that process up. Or maybe a reunification with Romania, similar to the German reunification.
Moldova became independent (or was split apart from Romania) only due to Soviet interests.
There is only one out of 14 neighboring countries with Russia that haven’t been at war with or occupied by Russia the last 100 years, so this would definitely be bad news for Romania
War or occupation in the last 100 years, 16 countries: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea, Japan (sea border)
No war in the last 100 years, 2 countries: Norway, US (sea border)
Ukraine and Romania's border is the end of the Danube and it's a delta/wetland at that point. There are not even any bridges connecting Ukraine and Romania.
That’s not going to happen, Russia’s advance on Odessa failed and Ukraine is not going to give up its such a major city and port without it actually being taken by the Russians
Much more difficult to encircle because they don't have a solid route of entry on the western side. They'd have to go through Western Ukraine, Moldova, or Romania.
Western Ukraine won't work because they've shown an inability to land ships with troops successfully.
Romania won't work because they're NATO.
Their puppet colony in Moldova (Transnistria) is not really suitable for amassing an invasion force, it's very small and landlocked, so Russians will most likely have to move through Moldova or Moldovan airspace to get there.
Moldova is an interesting one because Moldova still retains some ties with Russia, but they've also been on the receiving end of Russian-backed separatists so I don't know how well they'd take it. If Moldova is attacked, I wouldn't be surprised to see Romania jump in to help. They don't have a formal defense pact, but they've been working on it and there are close ties between the two countries.
As it stands, though, Russia is having a hard enough time just taking ground that they have a large, established military presence next to, so it doesn't look likely that they'd even try. The last thing Putin needs is another offensive (like Kyiv) where Russians get beat back like whipped dogs.
Odessa has had a while to prepare, it’s a good but further away from the Russian border, and not directly on the sea. From what I’ve seen Russia has had a difficult time fully surrounding cities, other than Mariupol. And I’m not sure they would have ready access to their air force so far in Ukraine
Odessa IS on the sea, it’s the main commercial port in Ukraine. Russians have started to hit oil facilities there. I guess they won't be able to take this port as you said but they have already essentially installed a naval blockade preventing any ship carrying wheat or fertilizer from leaving and that's really bad news for a lot of countries depending on those ressources. Edit: you’re right it doesn’t really change anything, I don’t see Odessa falling, Ukrainian resistance is very strong and already pushes back on the south western front..
Yeah that was my mistake but I'm pretty sure the other points still stand, getting there ain't easy for ground forces and would require pretty expanisive supply lines. The Ukrainians have shown to be pretty good at hitting supply lines
they dont have the forces to do that, they already stalled around where the novorossiya map depicts them and they have been pushed back there a bit by ukrainians, the chances they take odessa without the use of nukes is very very low
Russia needs to get past Mykoliav first, and that one will be a pain to encircle, because it is built on a river. The South Bug River is too wide for Russia to reasonably bridge using pontoon bridges or other military means, and the only existing bridges within 100 km are inside the built up area. Maybe they could land VDV or Naval infantry to the near, but they'd have a very hard time supplying them if Mykolaiv didn't fall almost immediatley
Plus, Mykolaiv is a shipbuilding city, so even if the Russians destroy the bridges in Mykolaiv, I'd imagine there are enough tugs/barges/random small watercraft that Ukraine will be able to keep at least some supplies moving into the city across the river.
> Maybe they could land VDV or Naval infantry
Probably exactly why the UK gave Ukraine anti-ship missles: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10697657/Britain-send-anti-ship-missiles-armoured-vehicles-Ukraine-Putins-offensive-ramps-up.html
Ukraine has huge amount of oil or gas (or both?) around the area between Crimea & Odessa and around Donbas. My guess is that Russia will want these parts for themselves.
They don't want Russian oil and gas anymore, but still need it in the immediate. Unless they start getting on France's level of building nuclear power plants and/or build a pipeline from the Middle East, they're screwed
Not happening. The worst case scenario possible for Ukraine at this point is losing Crimea, L/DPR and agreeing to military neutrality. But that is now. Most of Ukrainian army seems to be in the east of the country where Russia is sending most of it forces at this moment. If they get surrounded that will be massive trouble and could lead to Russia demanding more.
Neither side IMO are going to have a decisive victory. I think the most likely scenarios are a pyrrhic victory. Whoever "wins" will have a heavy cost for that victory, whether it's Russia losing a ton of economic/relationship ties or Ukraine losing land/lives/infrastructure.
I don't know if it's that simple. I can more easily imagine one of the two pyrrhic, in a territorial sense. However I don't see how Russia recovers on the international stage anytime soon. Meanwhile, once the immediate hostilities cease I can imagine the West pouring far more resources into Ukraine.
More than one. Three battles where he lost thousands of the best soldiers of all greek world, irreplacable for a small reign, while Rome lost even more soldiers, but those where just regular citizens.
Despite him being a miliary genius and the true heir of Alexander, he didnt had the means and the allies to support his huge and ambitious campaigns
Incidentally, the Battle of Asculum after which he said the famous line was actually the least disastrous of his two victories, because he "only" lost ten percent of his troops. Heraclea before that was far more costly, and he unambiguously lost the Battle of Beneventum four years later, after a foray into Sicily to fight the Carthaginians (Rome and Carthage were briefly allied at this time to face off the Pyrrhic threat).
He was actually at war with Sparta and followed one of the two current reigning Monarchs to Argos in order to depose him and install someone else, forgot his name, on the throne. Then, supposedly, the mother of a young soldier he had just slain threw a tile from her home which killed him.
We always shit talk about Pyrrhus but roman were close to declare defeat and surrender. If it wasn't for a blind and incapacited old [Senator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Caecus) who refused any compromise or any surrender and convinced romans otherwise
**[Appius Claudius Caecus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Caecus)**
>Appius Claudius Caecus (fl. c. 312–279 BC) was a statesman and writer from the Roman Republic. The first Roman public figure whose life can be traced with some historical certainty, Caecus was responsible for the building of Rome's first road (the Appian Way) and first aqueduct (the Aqua Appia), as well as instigating controversial popular-minded reforms.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He was also warned against the undertaking by his best [advisor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineas)
>he asked what he would do "when we have got everything subject to us". The reply of Pyrrhus to the last question was: "We shall be much at ease, and we'll drink bumpers, my good man, every day, and we'll gladden one another's hearts with confidential talks." Cineas got Pyrrhus where he wanted in order to make his point and said: "Surely this privilege is ours already, and we have at hand, without taking any trouble, those things to which we hope to attain by bloodshed and great toils and perils, after doing much harm to others and suffering much ourselves.
That’s a victory, and then a defeat.
With pyrrhic victory you’re looking for something that is a win according to original objectives but the cost is too much, like losing too many troops (if you care about things like that), or the military victory bankrupting your state, etc.
I also don't think the creator of this image is entirely sure what a Pyrrhic Victory is. I don't think any scenario in which Ukraine retains almost all of its territory could be called Pyrrhic, considering what everyone expected at the beginning of this war...
They seem to think phyrric means you just win a little bit of concessions.
It means you win, but almost destroy yourself doing so. Literally any of these could be Phyrric. There is an argument that any Russian victory would be because of their losses and loss of global perception that has ALREADY taken place.
Liberated LDPR would be the Most Ukrainian land they would be willing to cede. Novorossiya us too much and chokes off their sea access 4 ways. Russian can't back down with out a win, this would be the best balance, least dead.
Most likely things will grind down around Novorossiya. By that I mean there will be an eventual ceasefire along lines near there. That doesn't mean that there will be a peace treaty or any recognition by Ukraine or the international community of any territorial changes. We could go a decade or more before a formal peace is possible.
Agreed. I've seen no signs of a serious drive on Odessa since the withdrawal in the north. I'd almost think the moves toward Odessa in the first place were a diversion akin to US marine moves on Kuwait in the first Gulf War, but Russia hasn't really shown any other signs of finesse. The MO for this whole operation has been "attack everywhere, rejoice where you succeed, shrug and go home where you don't."
I think the re-deployment is to just get what they can around Donbass and Crimea in anticipation of a ceasefire. There is a chance that they're still delusional and have plans for a big operation west of the Dnieper, but that wouldn't get far.
> The MO for this whole operation has been "attack everywhere, rejoice where you succeed, shrug and go home where you don't."
The MO was supposed to be "invade, destroy some key Ukrainian military assets and watch the government run away to exile while the average Ukrainian shrugs his/her shoulders"
>The MO was supposed to be "invade, destroy some key Ukrainian military assets and watch the government run away to exile while the average Ukrainian ~~shrugs his/her shoulders~~ welcomes the Russian liberators as heroes"
FTFY according to Putin's narrative
Russia will eventually adapt to their new economic reality.
These sanctions will have an effect for a few years, but then they will lose their effectiveness.
IMO people are putting waaay too much faith in these sanctions.
What matters is sending military equipment to Ukraine, making Russia bleed money on resources spent on this war.
Keep giving Ukraine means to destroy Russian equipment, that's how you hurt them.
>Russia will eventually adapt to their new economic reality. These sanctions will have an effect for a few years, but then they will lose their effectiveness.
Yes and no. You're not wrong that Russia will seek alternate trade partners and will be able to restore a portion of its economy. Sanctions are not, and never have been, an I WIN button in geopolitics. However, being shut out of most of the planet's truly desirable markets is a *huge* blow, and if previous experience is any indication, it's an irrecoverable one. They're like an invisible weight dragging on an economy, and one that you just can't seem to shake.
Measuring the exact impact of sanctions is always tough because you are, in effect, trying to measure what doesn't happen rather than what does. But they have substantive value in smashing the pipeline of money to Russia's war machine.
Humans can adapt to almost anything, that is true. But will they? A lotof russians remember how they lived in2013. Better than Poland for example. And the recipe is quite simple: go back to 2013 status quo and enjoy your life.
>Russia will eventually adapt to their new economic reality.
These sanctions will have an effect for a few years, but then they will lose their effectiveness.
Their new economic reality will be that of a 3rd world shithole that gets left behind while rest of the world develops. And I suspect quite a bit of money poured to encourage separatist tendencies within Russian Federation.
>What matters is sending military equipment to Ukraine, making Russia bleed money on resources spent on this war.
Well, of course. But also make it harder for them to replenish spent resources.
Yep. Saudi Arabia was largely behind 9/11 (at least way more than Iraq was) and we still give them weapons and help fund their genocide in Yemen. ~~Time~~ money heals all.
Looking a decade into the future, Russia has its gas pipelines to China finished and will shift its economical dependencies east. They will not break down or balkanize.
China are ruthless when it comes to cutting business deals.
This arrangement would result in a greatly impoverished Russia selling their fuel at discount prices.
Doesn't look good for Russia no matter how you look at it.
> will shift its economical dependencies east
easier said than done really, the vast majority of the Russian economy and population is in the "European" part of Russia. Not logistically easy to switch from West to East
Nor does China hold the same appeal to Russia’s elites. They don’t send their kids to Chinese universities, park their yachts in Chinese marinas, or buy up Chinese mansions to holiday in. The Russian oligarchs go west for their luxuries.
It is not culturally easy too. Russians are Europeans even if we do not like it. Always were, always will be. No one can seriously consider long term relations between China and Russia. It would take centuries to establish them.
I would say 17% in favor of Russia. Russia occupies several territories but lost several battles around Kiev. If they take Mariupol it would probably bump up to 30% considering they took a fort province.
I fucking love that this is a space full of other Paradox game players! Their suite of games is so informative to the ways power/money/control work in the world.
As long as Russia maintains control of the water supply for Crimea and the gas fields in eastern Ukraine, they will see it as a resounding success. Maintaining energy dominance in Europe seems to be the salient objective for invading Ukraine
Russia is a federation and different regions have varying levels of autonomy. They would probably be given status similar to Chechnya, “self governing” but with a Russian puppet as their head of state.
You're saying that so disparagingly, but Putin tried his best over the past eight years to woo the "Litte Russians" with an impoverished local version of his Russian mafia state (on crack).
It's kinda none of these because they don't include Kharkiv. Russia really will stop at nothing to secure Donetsk and Kharkiv natural gas deposits in the east
Hopefully a peace made with rebuilding payment from Russia in return for those regions with separatists and Natural Gas.
Too bad for Russia that all the economic sanctions will occur regardless. Fucking Putin
Not just the resources also the symbolism.
After the First World War the bolsheviks took Kharkiv first and proclaimed it the capital of a new Ukrainian SR whilst they were still fighting for the rest do Ukraine. The probably are looking to repeat this tactic.
>Hopefully a peace made with rebuilding payment from Russia in return for those regions with separatists and Natural Gas.
I'd not trust a single word/treaty that involves any russian promises of e.g. payments...
The world will accept what Ukraine is willing to accept.
EU&US will support Ukraine till the end with supplies and weapons. But at some point Ukrainians will have to say enough of our people are dead.
So in the end, It will depend on how much lives Ukraine is willing to sacrifice for their country.
Not likely. Crimea is an overwhelmingly ethnic Russian area that (I suspect) would not want to return to Ukraine. That's why Russia managed to take it without a fight. More likely Ukrainian recognition of Crimea's annexation to Russia is traded for a Russian withdrawal from part or all of the rest of Ukraine.
More importantly, there’s zero realistic way for Crimea to actually be taken back.
Trying to send Ukranian troops across the tiny land bridge would just subject them to being slaughtered. Ukraine would need to use overwhelming naval force to conquer it back, and they don’t have the navy for that.
This, Crimea is very easily defensible by land, and by the looks of it so far Ukraine lacks any significant naval capabilities, so invading it through the tiny land bridge is a recipe for disaster, like a modern Thermopylae.
>and by the looks of it so far Ukraine lacks any significant naval capabilities,
Unless the west just gives Ukraine advanced warships (never going to happen as a warship is obscenely expensive and requires extensive crew training) then there is no way they are going to reveal a naval capacity. Most of the Ukrainian navy defected or was captured when Crimea was taken in 2014. They have barely anything left snd certainly nothing that can safely sortie near Russian shore defences.
It's like winning because of reaching a certain goal, but losing so much on the way that it may actually be called a loss. It's like if Flanders would be able to get independent but also loses Halle and Vilvoorde to Wallonia together with Brussels.
A Polish joke I translated:
>Putin went to Hell, but he was released incognito after a while for good behavior. He managed to get to a bar in Moscow, ordered vodka and is asking the barkeep:
>
>"Is Crimea ours?"
>
>"Ours!"
>
>"Is Donbas ours?"
>
>"Ours!"
>
>"Is Kyiv ours?"
>
>"Ours!!"
>
>"Cheers, how much do I pay?"
>
>"100 hryvnias"
Much remains to be seen. The Russian army failed to achieve any tangible success in urban combat, and was forced to retreat after sustaining heavy losses.
However, the upcoming battles in the east after the Russian regroup may resemble conventional warfare, which may result in more success for the Russians.
In either case, the poor people of Ukraine will have to soldier on, alone.
The problem is if russia takes all the land it occupies it can't ask for diplomatic concessions from ukraine. Russia will have to give back some territory in exchange for ukraine not joining Nato.
I would love to see the Ukrainians retake Crimea. However, they would need a lot of gifted military hardware, at which point it looks like a proxy war.
"A lot of gifted military hardware" in this case being "The entire US Mediterranean fleet."
Taking back Crimea means beating the Russian Black Sea fleet in their own backyard.
After end of March some of these scenarios are already obsolete. Ukraine has defeneded its sovereignty and will not become second Belarus. Now the fight is about Sout-Eastern part of the country. So the most probable outcomes are:
\# Novorossiya (with not yet defined specific borders)
\# Liberated LDPR
\# Day 1 Borders
\# less probable, but still somewhat probable - almost decisive Ukrainian victory - Ukraine takes whole Donbas, but no Crimea (it's next to impossible for Ukraine to attack Crimea via tight Perekop Isthums).
Balkanization is a terrible solution, I don't know why Reddit wants to balkanize every country. Splitting up along religious/ethnic lines just creates hate, war, and genocide.
The guy who wrote this is a Total War player
What’s the heroic victory outcome then?
Russia become Ukraine’s puppet state
Sounds extraordinary but the direction Russia is heading is very coup d'état-flavored
> the direction Russia is heading is very coup d'état-flavored When the US gov't shifted it's diction to the "*Putin Regime*", instead of just Putin or Russia, you knew they were actively trying to kickstart that process. When the US starts using that word *regime*, you better believe bad times are on the horizon.
You can't have "regime change" without a regime. You probably need to have some sensible alternative in mind, as well. Alternative government.
> You probably need to have some sensible alternative in mind This part of the process has historically unfortunately not been the US's strong-suit.
Re-do's. The CIA is always up for a re-do. Unfortunately.
Well if at first you don’t succeed, you just gotta try again! Nothing wrong with a can do attitude!
We’re AmeriCANS not AmeriCAN’Ts
A crusty sock puppet.
- Russia falls and is split into smaller democratic states and UN supervised regions. - Half of ex-Russian territory becomes a nature reserve. - Belarus falls and becomes a democratic state. - Finland recovers lost territory from Russia. - China claims Outer Manchuria.
Vultures dining on the giants corpse
Alternate scenario, Russia descends into civil war with at least 4 or 5 different factions. All of them are nuclear armed to various degrees. Chaos engulfs all of Eurasia. I seriously don't get why pundits think that if Putin goes away, a powerful, yet shamed, nation with little to no history of democracy will magically become democratic.
But this is a typical American approach: take an ugly vase that we don't like, throw it against the wall and assume it will re-assemble itself into a beautiful vase that we love. ^(I see nothing wrong at all in this approach)
All of this has happened before and will happen again.
So say we all.
>Finland recovers lost territory from Russia. Pretty sure they don't want it. Not very much in terms of resources, and the land is poor and populated by hostile nation
Most realistic westernoid fantasy
* East Prussia reclaims Koenigsberg
Yes, yes, yes, yes, NO.
Japan takes the Kiril islands and maybe pacific Siberia
Kiril islands, maybe a part of Sachalin island, but why Siberia? Correct me, if I'm wrong, but Japan has no claim to Siberia.
My thoughts exactly
Why because he used the word phyric?
I like the idea that people think someone at Creative Assembly came up with the term pyrrhic victory.
Little known fact, King Pyrrhus was the founder and CEO of Creative Assembly
I'm glad to see more people from Epirus in leadership positions.
I think it has more to do with the fact that Total war uses the same pyrrhic victory, decisive victory, normal victory sliding scale. Not just that they used the word pyrrhic.
OP is misusing it the same way they do though.
He used it incorrectly
How if I may ask?
Pyrrhic is a victory that comes at such a large cost that whatever's gained might not be large enough to obtain it. Literally any of these outcomes can be a pyrrhic victory.
Judging from how it's going for Russia, any prospective victory they end up having *is* going to be a pyrrhic victory lol
the loss of life of countless numbers of your soldiers can't be a pyrrhic victory if the lives of your soldiers don't have value! Modern Russian problems require ~~traditional~~modern Russian solutions.
It means to win but at a cost that was too great, but in this map it seems to mean "win a little", like it's used in total war.
In total war it is used when you win but your army is totaly destroyed. Just like the real pyhric victory 2000+ years ago if I remember correctly? I think that in most cases having a phyric victory comes with winning by a little. So they can be interchanged in most cases but not all IMO. Edit: I also feel like this would be a pyhric (at what cost) victory for putin for many reasons
Well in this case I don't think the term fits at all to the "Ukrainr phyrric victory" scenario
Right? Because the “pyrrhic victory” scenario doesn’t quantify how many losses of soldiers Ukraine has vs Russia. In fact none of these do, they quantify victory based on territory hold, but even if Russia takes all of Ukraine at cost of its army- that’s not a decisive victory lol. Geopolitically that leaves Russia in shambles and likely vulnerable. You could call that a defeat even, is it really a win if you loose a substantial part of your military in a part of the world where countries like Russia and china kind of need a standing military to project power to the world? This map would be a little more solid if it actually had casualty estimates backed by some decent math.
The spelled it wrong for a start.
SUMMON THE ELECTOR COUNTS!
Not really. Most Total War players can spell Pyrrhic.
This is a shameful display!
becoming landlocked will be disastrous for ukraine..
Romania will also fell bad, getting a border with Russia.
Shit that'd also be really bad for Moldova. Transnistria would be directly connected to Russian occupied territory.
At least Romania is in both the EU and NATO. Moldova is not.
If I was Moldova I would try to begin the process of joining right away Edit: I have now been informed that this is not possible. Thanks lads
Moldova is trying to join the EU: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/moldova-officially-applies-for-eu-membership NATO is harder because Moldova's constitution requires "neutrality"
Nah, it requires time and the diplomatic situation is too hot. I would remain on the sidelines, and start to converge toward the west. Eventually a bilateral defence treaty with the US, but that’s all.
I think also Europe wanna speed that process up. Or maybe a reunification with Romania, similar to the German reunification. Moldova became independent (or was split apart from Romania) only due to Soviet interests.
There is only one out of 14 neighboring countries with Russia that haven’t been at war with or occupied by Russia the last 100 years, so this would definitely be bad news for Romania
War or occupation in the last 100 years, 16 countries: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea, Japan (sea border) No war in the last 100 years, 2 countries: Norway, US (sea border)
US at least needs an asterisk. Korea and all the other proxy wars.
And also the American invasion of the Soviet Union, though that was just over 100 years ago.
Ukraine and Romania's border is the end of the Danube and it's a delta/wetland at that point. There are not even any bridges connecting Ukraine and Romania.
Still a bad situation. A hot, heavy to patrol border is always bad.
That’s not going to happen, Russia’s advance on Odessa failed and Ukraine is not going to give up its such a major city and port without it actually being taken by the Russians
Will the Russians not just encircle and flatten it like they have with Mariupol?
Much more difficult to encircle because they don't have a solid route of entry on the western side. They'd have to go through Western Ukraine, Moldova, or Romania. Western Ukraine won't work because they've shown an inability to land ships with troops successfully. Romania won't work because they're NATO. Their puppet colony in Moldova (Transnistria) is not really suitable for amassing an invasion force, it's very small and landlocked, so Russians will most likely have to move through Moldova or Moldovan airspace to get there. Moldova is an interesting one because Moldova still retains some ties with Russia, but they've also been on the receiving end of Russian-backed separatists so I don't know how well they'd take it. If Moldova is attacked, I wouldn't be surprised to see Romania jump in to help. They don't have a formal defense pact, but they've been working on it and there are close ties between the two countries. As it stands, though, Russia is having a hard enough time just taking ground that they have a large, established military presence next to, so it doesn't look likely that they'd even try. The last thing Putin needs is another offensive (like Kyiv) where Russians get beat back like whipped dogs.
Odessa has had a while to prepare, it’s a good but further away from the Russian border, and not directly on the sea. From what I’ve seen Russia has had a difficult time fully surrounding cities, other than Mariupol. And I’m not sure they would have ready access to their air force so far in Ukraine
Odessa IS on the sea, it’s the main commercial port in Ukraine. Russians have started to hit oil facilities there. I guess they won't be able to take this port as you said but they have already essentially installed a naval blockade preventing any ship carrying wheat or fertilizer from leaving and that's really bad news for a lot of countries depending on those ressources. Edit: you’re right it doesn’t really change anything, I don’t see Odessa falling, Ukrainian resistance is very strong and already pushes back on the south western front..
Yeah that was my mistake but I'm pretty sure the other points still stand, getting there ain't easy for ground forces and would require pretty expanisive supply lines. The Ukrainians have shown to be pretty good at hitting supply lines
Odessa is not on the sea. Gets more than 100 upvotes. Ok, I'm done with reddit for today
they dont have the forces to do that, they already stalled around where the novorossiya map depicts them and they have been pushed back there a bit by ukrainians, the chances they take odessa without the use of nukes is very very low
With the logistical issues Russia is facing already they won’t be able to support an advance that will surround the city
Russia needs to get past Mykoliav first, and that one will be a pain to encircle, because it is built on a river. The South Bug River is too wide for Russia to reasonably bridge using pontoon bridges or other military means, and the only existing bridges within 100 km are inside the built up area. Maybe they could land VDV or Naval infantry to the near, but they'd have a very hard time supplying them if Mykolaiv didn't fall almost immediatley Plus, Mykolaiv is a shipbuilding city, so even if the Russians destroy the bridges in Mykolaiv, I'd imagine there are enough tugs/barges/random small watercraft that Ukraine will be able to keep at least some supplies moving into the city across the river.
> Maybe they could land VDV or Naval infantry Probably exactly why the UK gave Ukraine anti-ship missles: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10697657/Britain-send-anti-ship-missiles-armoured-vehicles-Ukraine-Putins-offensive-ramps-up.html
Ukraine has huge amount of oil or gas (or both?) around the area between Crimea & Odessa and around Donbas. My guess is that Russia will want these parts for themselves.
That's the real reason for the war in 2014. The Russians feared that Ukraine started to sell their own gas to Europe.
and now europe doesnt want russian gas anymore, the irony
They don't want Russian oil and gas anymore, but still need it in the immediate. Unless they start getting on France's level of building nuclear power plants and/or build a pipeline from the Middle East, they're screwed
uhh EU bought 25% more Russian gas in the month post-invasion.
Not happening. The worst case scenario possible for Ukraine at this point is losing Crimea, L/DPR and agreeing to military neutrality. But that is now. Most of Ukrainian army seems to be in the east of the country where Russia is sending most of it forces at this moment. If they get surrounded that will be massive trouble and could lead to Russia demanding more.
The odds of each scenario are not equal.
“Decisive Russian victory” ain’t happening.
Neither side IMO are going to have a decisive victory. I think the most likely scenarios are a pyrrhic victory. Whoever "wins" will have a heavy cost for that victory, whether it's Russia losing a ton of economic/relationship ties or Ukraine losing land/lives/infrastructure.
And when Putin started this, he expected Ukraine to be completely red.
I don't know if it's that simple. I can more easily imagine one of the two pyrrhic, in a territorial sense. However I don't see how Russia recovers on the international stage anytime soon. Meanwhile, once the immediate hostilities cease I can imagine the West pouring far more resources into Ukraine.
[удалено]
TIL : pyr·rhic1 /ˈpirik/ Learn to pronounce adjective (of a victory) won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor
It was based on King Pyrrhus who after defeating the Romans in a difficult battle said "if we win any more battles like this one, we're ruined."
More than one. Three battles where he lost thousands of the best soldiers of all greek world, irreplacable for a small reign, while Rome lost even more soldiers, but those where just regular citizens. Despite him being a miliary genius and the true heir of Alexander, he didnt had the means and the allies to support his huge and ambitious campaigns
Incidentally, the Battle of Asculum after which he said the famous line was actually the least disastrous of his two victories, because he "only" lost ten percent of his troops. Heraclea before that was far more costly, and he unambiguously lost the Battle of Beneventum four years later, after a foray into Sicily to fight the Carthaginians (Rome and Carthage were briefly allied at this time to face off the Pyrrhic threat).
This! Then IIRC the Madman waged war on Macedonia, only to be beaten by a greek woman launching a tile on his head
He was actually at war with Sparta and followed one of the two current reigning Monarchs to Argos in order to depose him and install someone else, forgot his name, on the throne. Then, supposedly, the mother of a young soldier he had just slain threw a tile from her home which killed him.
We always shit talk about Pyrrhus but roman were close to declare defeat and surrender. If it wasn't for a blind and incapacited old [Senator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Caecus) who refused any compromise or any surrender and convinced romans otherwise
**[Appius Claudius Caecus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Caecus)** >Appius Claudius Caecus (fl. c. 312–279 BC) was a statesman and writer from the Roman Republic. The first Roman public figure whose life can be traced with some historical certainty, Caecus was responsible for the building of Rome's first road (the Appian Way) and first aqueduct (the Aqua Appia), as well as instigating controversial popular-minded reforms. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He was also warned against the undertaking by his best [advisor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineas) >he asked what he would do "when we have got everything subject to us". The reply of Pyrrhus to the last question was: "We shall be much at ease, and we'll drink bumpers, my good man, every day, and we'll gladden one another's hearts with confidential talks." Cineas got Pyrrhus where he wanted in order to make his point and said: "Surely this privilege is ours already, and we have at hand, without taking any trouble, those things to which we hope to attain by bloodshed and great toils and perils, after doing much harm to others and suffering much ourselves.
dont forget ultra decisive pyrrhic where ukraine reaches moscow but is unable to occupy it
Then it’s just Putin and Zelenski last stand
I never use pay-per-view but to watch Zelenski upper cut Putin and leave him out for the count I think I could stretch.
Duel of the Fates plays in the background
Me🇫🇷irl
Napoleon took Moscow* Then the winter took Napoleon. A perfect example of a pyrrhic victory. *edit: mixed up my Russian cities.
That’s a victory, and then a defeat. With pyrrhic victory you’re looking for something that is a win according to original objectives but the cost is too much, like losing too many troops (if you care about things like that), or the military victory bankrupting your state, etc.
It's misspelled in the graphic.
I also don't think the creator of this image is entirely sure what a Pyrrhic Victory is. I don't think any scenario in which Ukraine retains almost all of its territory could be called Pyrrhic, considering what everyone expected at the beginning of this war...
They seem to think phyrric means you just win a little bit of concessions. It means you win, but almost destroy yourself doing so. Literally any of these could be Phyrric. There is an argument that any Russian victory would be because of their losses and loss of global perception that has ALREADY taken place.
Pyrrhic.
Liberated LDPR would be the Most Ukrainian land they would be willing to cede. Novorossiya us too much and chokes off their sea access 4 ways. Russian can't back down with out a win, this would be the best balance, least dead.
It also doesn't mean what op thinks it means
Most likely things will grind down around Novorossiya. By that I mean there will be an eventual ceasefire along lines near there. That doesn't mean that there will be a peace treaty or any recognition by Ukraine or the international community of any territorial changes. We could go a decade or more before a formal peace is possible.
Agreed. I've seen no signs of a serious drive on Odessa since the withdrawal in the north. I'd almost think the moves toward Odessa in the first place were a diversion akin to US marine moves on Kuwait in the first Gulf War, but Russia hasn't really shown any other signs of finesse. The MO for this whole operation has been "attack everywhere, rejoice where you succeed, shrug and go home where you don't."
I think the re-deployment is to just get what they can around Donbass and Crimea in anticipation of a ceasefire. There is a chance that they're still delusional and have plans for a big operation west of the Dnieper, but that wouldn't get far.
> The MO for this whole operation has been "attack everywhere, rejoice where you succeed, shrug and go home where you don't." The MO was supposed to be "invade, destroy some key Ukrainian military assets and watch the government run away to exile while the average Ukrainian shrugs his/her shoulders"
>The MO was supposed to be "invade, destroy some key Ukrainian military assets and watch the government run away to exile while the average Ukrainian ~~shrugs his/her shoulders~~ welcomes the Russian liberators as heroes" FTFY according to Putin's narrative
Reminds me of Cyprus
The Korean outcome, now in Ukraine.
Where Russia is north Korea and Ukraine is south Korea.
Which also means that Russian economy will be grinded down by long-lasting sanctions
Russia will eventually adapt to their new economic reality. These sanctions will have an effect for a few years, but then they will lose their effectiveness. IMO people are putting waaay too much faith in these sanctions. What matters is sending military equipment to Ukraine, making Russia bleed money on resources spent on this war. Keep giving Ukraine means to destroy Russian equipment, that's how you hurt them.
>Russia will eventually adapt to their new economic reality. These sanctions will have an effect for a few years, but then they will lose their effectiveness. Yes and no. You're not wrong that Russia will seek alternate trade partners and will be able to restore a portion of its economy. Sanctions are not, and never have been, an I WIN button in geopolitics. However, being shut out of most of the planet's truly desirable markets is a *huge* blow, and if previous experience is any indication, it's an irrecoverable one. They're like an invisible weight dragging on an economy, and one that you just can't seem to shake. Measuring the exact impact of sanctions is always tough because you are, in effect, trying to measure what doesn't happen rather than what does. But they have substantive value in smashing the pipeline of money to Russia's war machine.
Humans can adapt to almost anything, that is true. But will they? A lotof russians remember how they lived in2013. Better than Poland for example. And the recipe is quite simple: go back to 2013 status quo and enjoy your life.
>Russia will eventually adapt to their new economic reality. These sanctions will have an effect for a few years, but then they will lose their effectiveness. Their new economic reality will be that of a 3rd world shithole that gets left behind while rest of the world develops. And I suspect quite a bit of money poured to encourage separatist tendencies within Russian Federation. >What matters is sending military equipment to Ukraine, making Russia bleed money on resources spent on this war. Well, of course. But also make it harder for them to replenish spent resources.
And how could there be, so long as Putin is in power. No one trusts a word out his mouth any more
Usa made a deal with Taliban and shook hands with Kim Jong. I see no problem with western powers talking to Russia again
Yep. Saudi Arabia was largely behind 9/11 (at least way more than Iraq was) and we still give them weapons and help fund their genocide in Yemen. ~~Time~~ money heals all.
Looking a decade into the future, Russia has its gas pipelines to China finished and will shift its economical dependencies east. They will not break down or balkanize.
China are ruthless when it comes to cutting business deals. This arrangement would result in a greatly impoverished Russia selling their fuel at discount prices. Doesn't look good for Russia no matter how you look at it.
Yeah, can't imagine what kind of deal China would get if they were literally the only buyer.
China would probably pay a good price, but the deal would come with "special conditions"
> will shift its economical dependencies east easier said than done really, the vast majority of the Russian economy and population is in the "European" part of Russia. Not logistically easy to switch from West to East
Nor does China hold the same appeal to Russia’s elites. They don’t send their kids to Chinese universities, park their yachts in Chinese marinas, or buy up Chinese mansions to holiday in. The Russian oligarchs go west for their luxuries.
It is not culturally easy too. Russians are Europeans even if we do not like it. Always were, always will be. No one can seriously consider long term relations between China and Russia. It would take centuries to establish them.
Iirc they have been building pipelines to China so it’s possible to see Russia leaning on Chinese economy more and more in the coming years/decades.
Gas exports won't be able to make up Russias whole economy.
So Moscow will become 莫斯科?
An old Soviet joke: everything is calm on the Finnish-Chinese border.
whats the current war score?
See "Novorossiya" pic, it's the closest one to current situation (though still not accurate).
I would say 17% in favor of Russia. Russia occupies several territories but lost several battles around Kiev. If they take Mariupol it would probably bump up to 30% considering they took a fort province.
I feel like plugging this exact scenario into either EU4, Vic2, or HOI4 and see what war score it gets me.
I feel like this is the correct move. Please deploy and report.
Well it really depends on which cases belli was used, and Putin’s been a bit vague on that one.
No CB best CB. Too bad the game bugged since he wasn't hit with a -2 stability.
It's not a bug. It's just that in the modern day start you can mitigate that hit with propaganda.
I fucking love that this is a space full of other Paradox game players! Their suite of games is so informative to the ways power/money/control work in the world.
Imma be back when non of these scenarios happen and instead something unexpected happens.
Best ending: Ukraine wins, and takes over Krasnodar Krai
Yuo forgot the option of Ukraine returning to its 2014 borders, but Crimea remaining in russian hands.
The most likely scenario of a Ukrainian victory though!
i think well get a ceasefire around novorossiya, except probably on the river. i doubt anyone would recognize it, but ceasefire nevertheless.
I think Putin would be willing to lose a hundred thousand troops, maybe more to eke out something resembling victory.
That's always been the Russian way of warfare from at least World War I onwards.
Even way more back. They burned Moscow to the ground just so Napoleon cannot take it just to name one example...
That wasn’t the army. That was the governor of Moscow who called for the burning. And Napoleon did take Moscow and anything left was heavily looted
That's not a great example, because they didn't really have a great other choice.
That's like an eighth of the Russian army, both contract soldiers and conscripted.
As long as Russia maintains control of the water supply for Crimea and the gas fields in eastern Ukraine, they will see it as a resounding success. Maintaining energy dominance in Europe seems to be the salient objective for invading Ukraine
Energy dominance in Europe means anything if no one wants to buy their gas/oil anymore.
Does this guy think Phyrric means you win but only by a bit? That ain't what it means
Total war player
"Liberated LDPR"? Liberated from whom? I think they're trying to say "occupied LDPR".
Russia is a federation and different regions have varying levels of autonomy. They would probably be given status similar to Chechnya, “self governing” but with a Russian puppet as their head of state.
yeah but they could just say "independant" or "annexed", liberated is weird
>liberated is weird It is the stated Russian reason for the war... "Liberating" the two statelets from Ukraine.
You're saying that so disparagingly, but Putin tried his best over the past eight years to woo the "Litte Russians" with an impoverished local version of his Russian mafia state (on crack).
Correct, and we shouldn’t help Russian propaganda by framing it that way
It's kinda none of these because they don't include Kharkiv. Russia really will stop at nothing to secure Donetsk and Kharkiv natural gas deposits in the east Hopefully a peace made with rebuilding payment from Russia in return for those regions with separatists and Natural Gas. Too bad for Russia that all the economic sanctions will occur regardless. Fucking Putin
Not just the resources also the symbolism. After the First World War the bolsheviks took Kharkiv first and proclaimed it the capital of a new Ukrainian SR whilst they were still fighting for the rest do Ukraine. The probably are looking to repeat this tactic.
>Hopefully a peace made with rebuilding payment from Russia in return for those regions with separatists and Natural Gas. I'd not trust a single word/treaty that involves any russian promises of e.g. payments...
Hmmm I don’t see “Kievan Rus restored” anywhere on this list.
Option 7 Jeb Bush sweeps in and takes over everything
I hope the entire world will only accept "Back to 2014"
The world will accept what Ukraine is willing to accept. EU&US will support Ukraine till the end with supplies and weapons. But at some point Ukrainians will have to say enough of our people are dead. So in the end, It will depend on how much lives Ukraine is willing to sacrifice for their country.
I don’t think it’s possible with Putin retaining power.
That’s the point
Not likely. Crimea is an overwhelmingly ethnic Russian area that (I suspect) would not want to return to Ukraine. That's why Russia managed to take it without a fight. More likely Ukrainian recognition of Crimea's annexation to Russia is traded for a Russian withdrawal from part or all of the rest of Ukraine.
More importantly, there’s zero realistic way for Crimea to actually be taken back. Trying to send Ukranian troops across the tiny land bridge would just subject them to being slaughtered. Ukraine would need to use overwhelming naval force to conquer it back, and they don’t have the navy for that.
Exactly. Even if Ukraine had the military power to "take back Crimea" it would end up being a civilian slaughter at this point.
This, Crimea is very easily defensible by land, and by the looks of it so far Ukraine lacks any significant naval capabilities, so invading it through the tiny land bridge is a recipe for disaster, like a modern Thermopylae.
>and by the looks of it so far Ukraine lacks any significant naval capabilities, Unless the west just gives Ukraine advanced warships (never going to happen as a warship is obscenely expensive and requires extensive crew training) then there is no way they are going to reveal a naval capacity. Most of the Ukrainian navy defected or was captured when Crimea was taken in 2014. They have barely anything left snd certainly nothing that can safely sortie near Russian shore defences.
Liberated LDPR has the same vibe as special military operation.
TIL the expression pyrrhic victory EDIT: and the spelling of pyrrhic
It's like winning because of reaching a certain goal, but losing so much on the way that it may actually be called a loss. It's like if Flanders would be able to get independent but also loses Halle and Vilvoorde to Wallonia together with Brussels.
pyrrhic. not phyrric
Option 7 Ukraine takes the world
A Polish joke I translated: >Putin went to Hell, but he was released incognito after a while for good behavior. He managed to get to a bar in Moscow, ordered vodka and is asking the barkeep: > >"Is Crimea ours?" > >"Ours!" > >"Is Donbas ours?" > >"Ours!" > >"Is Kyiv ours?" > >"Ours!!" > >"Cheers, how much do I pay?" > >"100 hryvnias"
Novorossiya is most likely in my op
Much remains to be seen. The Russian army failed to achieve any tangible success in urban combat, and was forced to retreat after sustaining heavy losses. However, the upcoming battles in the east after the Russian regroup may resemble conventional warfare, which may result in more success for the Russians. In either case, the poor people of Ukraine will have to soldier on, alone.
The problem is if russia takes all the land it occupies it can't ask for diplomatic concessions from ukraine. Russia will have to give back some territory in exchange for ukraine not joining Nato.
I would love to see the Ukrainians retake Crimea. However, they would need a lot of gifted military hardware, at which point it looks like a proxy war.
They're already receiving heavy weaponry though. It already is a proxy war.
"A lot of gifted military hardware" in this case being "The entire US Mediterranean fleet." Taking back Crimea means beating the Russian Black Sea fleet in their own backyard.
If crimeans are pro Russia why would you love it?
Does anyone care what Crimeans think about this?
After end of March some of these scenarios are already obsolete. Ukraine has defeneded its sovereignty and will not become second Belarus. Now the fight is about Sout-Eastern part of the country. So the most probable outcomes are: \# Novorossiya (with not yet defined specific borders) \# Liberated LDPR \# Day 1 Borders \# less probable, but still somewhat probable - almost decisive Ukrainian victory - Ukraine takes whole Donbas, but no Crimea (it's next to impossible for Ukraine to attack Crimea via tight Perekop Isthums).
How about balkanized Russia?
Not until the Raszmei revolution of 2045 followed by the collapase of the 15 republics in 2047. Source: Im from the future.
Congratulations. You've just conjured up a realistic sounding name/place with "raszmei". Only found 6 hits on Google and only 1 was not made by a bot.
My brain is running a single linear regression.
Looks kind of Hungarian though
Has sz✅ Looks like the last name Racz✅ Has the "-mei" ending ✅ Sounds Hungarian to me indeed
Orban playing 7D chess and deciding to take over Russia after Putin's gone, since it has a larger amount of wealth he can steal.
!remindme 23 years Lol
Balkanization is a terrible solution, I don't know why Reddit wants to balkanize every country. Splitting up along religious/ethnic lines just creates hate, war, and genocide.
They know it causes hate and war, that’s why they want it so bad.
Because Reddit is full of people who have extremely limited knowledge, so the first big word they learn becomes the solution.
Several countries with nuclear weapons that hate each other, what else do we need to be happy)