7 ms·

If you talk to a Ukrainian, they will tell you that the war will end when they win the war. I.E. they won’t stop fighting until the Russians are gone. So if th

If you talk to a Ukrainian, they will tell you that the war will end when they win the war. I.E. they won’t stop fighting until the Russians are gone. So if the regions remain under Russian control, the fighting will continue. Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up, until it’s over. Most likely outcome is that Russia attempts to hold the invaded territory for a period of years and eventually leaves when it becomes untenable for Russian leadership

potatototoo99 4y ago
The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important. So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.
- polotics 4y ago
  Any end of the war that shows aggression pays off dividends means the start of many other aggressions elsewhere, a new world order of might-makes-right that can only stabilise again once everyone is armed with nukes.
  - potatototoo99 4y ago
    I don't think any outcome at this time would be a success for Russia, but feeding the meatgrinder until the world runs out of Ukranians just to send a message about aggression seems stupid. Of course might-makes-right, the current world order was built on that - the military superiority of the US after WW2. Since then the champion of that new world order didn't shy away from invading other countries.
    - akimball 4y ago
      Correlation is not causation. Perhaps right makes might. Or perhaps both are caused by another factor entirely, such as brane interactions.
    - msm_ 4y ago
      > but feeding the meatgrinder until the world runs out of Ukranians just to send a message about aggression Or Russians.
    - polotics 4y ago
      You write: "until the world runs out of Ukranians". This is very offensive, as it erases the process by which some Ukrainians are dying. Anyways, back to basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia Population Growth rate Decrease -0.39 (2020)[2] Birth rate Decrease 9.8 births/1,000 population (2020)[2] Death rate Neutral decrease 14.6 deaths/1,000 population (2020)[2] Life expectancy Decrease 71.54 years (2020)[2] • male Decrease 66.49 years (2020)[2] • female Decrease 76.43 years (2020)[2] It is Russian that are deciding collectively that the world should run out of Russians. This is a sad fact, I wish Russians would get fairness and hope some day.
- khochesh_kushat 4y ago
  If the war continues until Russia wins simply because they annexed regions, then surely the next step is to annex a few more regions for fun and profit.
  - akimball 4y ago
    Finland seems obvious.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Georgia and Moldova seem more obvious, but there is a reason that in the current wave of Russian aggression Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO and the Baltic republics and other countries of NATO’s eastern flank have been among the most assertive about the need to support Ukraine; there are lots of obvious targets if the US isn’t willing to assist Russia’s neighbors in resisting aggression.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important. They have already formally annexed, and subsequently lost a tonne of the area they formally annexed. Nothing happened. Crimea is also Ukrainian territory and not Russian, when they lose it im sure they throw another hissy fit like they do nearly every week now. But no one will give it any mind as Russia does it weekly. > So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions. My guess is the war ends when enough Russians die that the Russians back at home decide they have had enough of the war.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions They didn’t control much of the territory they purported to annex when they annexed it, and they’ve lost more of it since. The PR effort represented by that annexation is not a sign that the war will progress until Russian victory, if anything its the opposite. > and the Crimea is strategically and historically important. Crimea being strategically and historically important is certainly the reason it was invaded and seized in 2014, but its not something that makes Russian victory inevitable. > So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict A US president abandoning Ukraine would definitely impact the course of that front of the war, and might result in a complete Russian victory over Ukraine [0]; that won’t end the regional war that started with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, it will just shift the active fronts to Moldova and Georgia. Not to mention the impacts on other areas of friction between the same China/Russia/NK/Iran bloc and the US, particularly in Syria, that will result from a demonstration of America’s lack of resolve, especially if it is accompanied by easing of the resistance in the European front of what has already become a global conflict. [0] it might also shatter US relations with European allies especially the Eastern flank of NATO, which has been pushing support for Ukraine against Russian aggression harder than anyone, including the US, for reasons which should be geographically and historically obvious. It’s clear that there is a faction in the US, including at least the leading contender for the main opposition party’s nomination for the Presidency, that would see that as a plus, too, though why is less clear.
pydry 4y ago
>Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up They're pretty much going to have to give up at some point. The west can't feed them with sufficient arms and ammunition to keep up and it has blown through all of its spares. It can ramp up to match, but probably not within the next 2 years which is too late. Western media has been putting a spin on this in the last week (e.g. blinken's "Ukraine will have to recover some territory through political means"), but it's pretty clear if you look at the production numbers, current shell rates, etc. It's also why some Republicans are starting to feign being anti-war - to try and make this "Biden's" war, so in the event of failure the failure gets chalked up to him.
- FredPret 4y ago
  America ramped up from having no appreciable military to being the number 1 military power during WW2, all in time to help win the thing. So can the entire West crank out more shells than Ukraine can shoot at Russia if global stability depends on it? Of course we can.
  - pydry 4y ago
    And they could ramp up again, but it's not going to make a difference in the next six critical months especially without putting the economy on a war footing and suppressing civilian production like they did last time. If China decides to supply Russia, it'll make even less of a difference. Russia already outproduces the US in steel (key input into shells, and a bottleneck in both wars). China outproduces by a factor of 10.
    - b112 4y ago
      China outproduces by a factor of 10. You mean Chinese steel, which is terrible, barely passable junk? Yes, great for mission critical stuff.
      - pydry 4y ago
calderknight 4y ago
Do we know if that's the view of the average Ukrainian?
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Indeed we do[0]. [0] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-confidence-in-president-zelensky-a-surge-in-support-for-nato-membership-russia-should-pay-for-reconstruction/ https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-...
  - xtian 4y ago
    That organization is funded by the US government. https://www.iri.org/news/national-endowment-for-democracy-ned-ndi-iri-cipe-and-solidarity-center-welcome-increased-funding-from-congress/ https://www.iri.org/news/national-endowment-for-democracy-ne...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      It seems like you're implying some sort of relevance to this, without stating it.
      - xtian 4y ago
        You don’t think it’s relevant that the source is the primary funder and arms provider of one side of this conflict?
        kspacewalk2 4y ago
        I think all Ukrainians are very thankful that the US for helping them in their hour of greatest need, to defeat a genocidal invader. Wanna know what they think of China? The answer is, they don't think of China. This is because, while China can afford the big boy pants and has probably already purchased them, they haven't put them on yet.

potatototoo99 4y ago

The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important. So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.

polotics 4y ago
Any end of the war that shows aggression pays off dividends means the start of many other aggressions elsewhere, a new world order of might-makes-right that can only stabilise again once everyone is armed with nukes.
- potatototoo99 4y ago
  I don't think any outcome at this time would be a success for Russia, but feeding the meatgrinder until the world runs out of Ukranians just to send a message about aggression seems stupid. Of course might-makes-right, the current world order was built on that - the military superiority of the US after WW2. Since then the champion of that new world order didn't shy away from invading other countries.
  - akimball 4y ago
    Correlation is not causation. Perhaps right makes might. Or perhaps both are caused by another factor entirely, such as brane interactions.
  - msm_ 4y ago
    > but feeding the meatgrinder until the world runs out of Ukranians just to send a message about aggression Or Russians.
  - polotics 4y ago
    You write: "until the world runs out of Ukranians". This is very offensive, as it erases the process by which some Ukrainians are dying. Anyways, back to basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia Population Growth rate Decrease -0.39 (2020)[2] Birth rate Decrease 9.8 births/1,000 population (2020)[2] Death rate Neutral decrease 14.6 deaths/1,000 population (2020)[2] Life expectancy Decrease 71.54 years (2020)[2] • male Decrease 66.49 years (2020)[2] • female Decrease 76.43 years (2020)[2] It is Russian that are deciding collectively that the world should run out of Russians. This is a sad fact, I wish Russians would get fairness and hope some day.
khochesh_kushat 4y ago
If the war continues until Russia wins simply because they annexed regions, then surely the next step is to annex a few more regions for fun and profit.
- akimball 4y ago
  Finland seems obvious.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Georgia and Moldova seem more obvious, but there is a reason that in the current wave of Russian aggression Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO and the Baltic republics and other countries of NATO’s eastern flank have been among the most assertive about the need to support Ukraine; there are lots of obvious targets if the US isn’t willing to assist Russia’s neighbors in resisting aggression.
_kbh_ 4y ago
> The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important. They have already formally annexed, and subsequently lost a tonne of the area they formally annexed. Nothing happened. Crimea is also Ukrainian territory and not Russian, when they lose it im sure they throw another hissy fit like they do nearly every week now. But no one will give it any mind as Russia does it weekly. > So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions. My guess is the war ends when enough Russians die that the Russians back at home decide they have had enough of the war.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions They didn’t control much of the territory they purported to annex when they annexed it, and they’ve lost more of it since. The PR effort represented by that annexation is not a sign that the war will progress until Russian victory, if anything its the opposite. > and the Crimea is strategically and historically important. Crimea being strategically and historically important is certainly the reason it was invaded and seized in 2014, but its not something that makes Russian victory inevitable. > So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict A US president abandoning Ukraine would definitely impact the course of that front of the war, and might result in a complete Russian victory over Ukraine [0]; that won’t end the regional war that started with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, it will just shift the active fronts to Moldova and Georgia. Not to mention the impacts on other areas of friction between the same China/Russia/NK/Iran bloc and the US, particularly in Syria, that will result from a demonstration of America’s lack of resolve, especially if it is accompanied by easing of the resistance in the European front of what has already become a global conflict. [0] it might also shatter US relations with European allies especially the Eastern flank of NATO, which has been pushing support for Ukraine against Russian aggression harder than anyone, including the US, for reasons which should be geographically and historically obvious. It’s clear that there is a faction in the US, including at least the leading contender for the main opposition party’s nomination for the Presidency, that would see that as a plus, too, though why is less clear.

pydry 4y ago

>Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up They're pretty much going to have to give up at some point. The west can't feed them with sufficient arms and ammunition to keep up and it has blown through all of its spares. It can ramp up to match, but probably not within the next 2 years which is too late. Western media has been putting a spin on this in the last week (e.g. blinken's "Ukraine will have to recover some territory through political means"), but it's pretty clear if you look at the production numbers, current shell rates, etc. It's also why some Republicans are starting to feign being anti-war - to try and make this "Biden's" war, so in the event of failure the failure gets chalked up to him.

FredPret 4y ago
America ramped up from having no appreciable military to being the number 1 military power during WW2, all in time to help win the thing. So can the entire West crank out more shells than Ukraine can shoot at Russia if global stability depends on it? Of course we can.
- pydry 4y ago
  And they could ramp up again, but it's not going to make a difference in the next six critical months especially without putting the economy on a war footing and suppressing civilian production like they did last time. If China decides to supply Russia, it'll make even less of a difference. Russia already outproduces the US in steel (key input into shells, and a bottleneck in both wars). China outproduces by a factor of 10.
  - b112 4y ago
    China outproduces by a factor of 10. You mean Chinese steel, which is terrible, barely passable junk? Yes, great for mission critical stuff.
    - pydry 4y ago

calderknight 4y ago

Do we know if that's the view of the average Ukrainian?

kspacewalk2 4y ago
Indeed we do[0]. [0] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-confidence-in-president-zelensky-a-surge-in-support-for-nato-membership-russia-should-pay-for-reconstruction/ https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-...
- xtian 4y ago
  That organization is funded by the US government. https://www.iri.org/news/national-endowment-for-democracy-ned-ndi-iri-cipe-and-solidarity-center-welcome-increased-funding-from-congress/ https://www.iri.org/news/national-endowment-for-democracy-ne...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    It seems like you're implying some sort of relevance to this, without stating it.
    - xtian 4y ago
      You don’t think it’s relevant that the source is the primary funder and arms provider of one side of this conflict?
      - kspacewalk2 4y ago
        I think all Ukrainians are very thankful that the US for helping them in their hour of greatest need, to defeat a genocidal invader. Wanna know what they think of China? The answer is, they don't think of China. This is because, while China can afford the big boy pants and has probably already purchased them, they haven't put them on yet.