Winning is a matter of perspective. Are they succeeding in their stated objectives? Unstated? Stated would be something like: - "denazification" - debatable m

Winning is a matter of perspective. Are they succeeding in their stated objectives? Unstated? Stated would be something like: - "denazification" - debatable meaning, but destruction/capture of Azov probably meets it. - "Liberation" of ethnic-Russian-majority areas from Ukraine - This won't be settled until the fighting stops, I think it's far too uncertain at this point to call in either direction, but if Putin can hold what he currently has he may be able to claim this. I suspect Russia would suffer if they try to take too much, hubris often seems to lead to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Unstated: - Destroying Ukraine as a viable country/functioning economy, and/or installing a puppet government - Damaging American global authority and accelerating the push towards multipolarity - Gathering domestic public support and distracting from domestic politics by uniting against an external enemy Ukraine has failed to make significant headway in driving the Russians out, but I don't know if that means they're losing or if their strategy just needs more time. As the defender, most successful scenarios require great sacrifice and possibly territorial concessions, so the line between victory and defeat is blurrier than for the attacker, who presumably has defined objectives before moving militarily. UA still has great public and institutional support in the West, and in a fight for survival will undoubtedly push harder for victory than RU. They still have far greater total available manpower - AIUI, as long as Putin does not formally declare war he is greatly restricted in the number of troops he can field. The Ukrainians seem to lack in equipment and haven't been able to destroy enough Russian artillery to push them back, but sabotage operations may change that.