Mid-June 2022: Who wins the war?

[SnowLabrador]

I'm guessing Russia, though it gives me no joy to say this. I think it's becoming clear that Ukraine can only fight so long against a much stronger country. After this, the next GOP President will probably invade Canada, and China might invade Taiwan too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There will be a Korean style ceasefire where no one clearly wins.

[Santander]

I'm guessing Russia, though it gives me no joy to say this. I think it's becoming clear that Ukraine can only fight so long against a much stronger country. After this, the next GOP President will probably invade Canada, and China might invade Taiwan too.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[Mr. Smith]

Ukraine, just because they have more support and Putin is just bad at this whole war thing.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm guessing Russia, though it gives me no joy to say this. I think it's becoming clear that Ukraine can only fight so long against a much stronger country. After this, the next GOP President will probably invade Canada, and China might invade Taiwan too.

Please don't post such rank stupidity ever again. Canada has nothing that we would want, let alone what a Republican President, let alone Trump (who almost certainly will be the next President) would invade over.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

We're still in the same situation. The war will continue until Putin escalates in such a way that provokes a larger war, or gets tossed out a window by his generals. Ukraine can fight harder and longer than Russia can, but Russia has more artillery to keep pounding Ukraine indefinitely. Russia very clearly does not have a strategy here.

[SnowLabrador]

I'm guessing Russia, though it gives me no joy to say this. I think it's becoming clear that Ukraine can only fight so long against a much stronger country. After this, the next GOP President will probably invade Canada, and China might invade Taiwan too.

Please don't post such rank stupidity ever again. Canada has nothing that we would want, let alone what a Republican President, let alone Trump (who almost certainly will be the next President) would invade over.

It's not about resources, it's because GOP politicians despise the Canadian government's progressive policies. Look at how Marjorie Greene and Matt Gaetz and Fox anchors bash Canada.

For now, endorsing an invasion of Canada is a fringe position. But eventually GOP politicians who oppose invading Canada will be primaried out until little by little, it becomes the GOP consensus that we should go to war with Canada. And just because I say it doesn't mean I'm happy about it; far from it.

[PSOL]

Russia will probably take more territory bit by bit over the next two to three years.

[nicholas.slaydon]

The real question that needs to be answered in order to know who will win the war is the question of what is Russia's end goal? What are their victory conditions? They have said that they want to "liberate" the Donbas region, but if that were true why did they initially attack the entirety of Ukraine? Obviously their first goal was to dismantle Ukraine as a state by decapitating its government, and picking up the pieces of what was left. However that goal failed spectacularly, and they have had to reorient towards the war in the East. However, if and when Russia does take Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, will they simply end the war there in order to come back for another round in a couple of years, or will they still press forward and try to take even more land? We simply don't know unless we know what Russia would consider as a victory. They might achieve their goals in Luhansk and Donetsk and continue the fighting to take more land. If Russia still has the goal of dismantling Ukraine's government, or conquering the country, then achieving their stated goal of victory in Luhansk and Donetsk will not stop the invasion, and if they do continue the war beyond their stated goals, that means that this war will be going on for so long that determining who will be the victor would be impossible to guess today.

[YE]

Don’t feed the troll.

[CumbrianLefty]

The real question that needs to be answered in order to know who will win the war is the question of what is Russia's end goal? What are their victory conditions? They have said that they want to "liberate" the Donbas region, but if that were true why did they initially attack the entirety of Ukraine? Obviously their first goal was to dismantle Ukraine as a state by decapitating its government, and picking up the pieces of what was left. However that goal failed spectacularly, and they have had to reorient towards the war in the East. However, if and when Russia does take Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, will they simply end the war there in order to come back for another round in a couple of years, or will they still press forward and try to take even more land? We simply don't know unless we know what Russia would consider as a victory. They might achieve their goals in Luhansk and Donetsk and continue the fighting to take more land. If Russia still has the goal of dismantling Ukraine's government, or conquering the country, then achieving their stated goal of victory in Luhansk and Donetsk will not stop the invasion, and if they do continue the war beyond their stated goals, that means that this war will be going on for so long that determining who will be the victor would be impossible to guess today.

Putin's original intention was 100% to occupy the entirety of Ukraine.

Duginist propagandists in Russia continue to insist the very concept of a separate Ukrainian nation and people needs to be totally eradicated using whatever means necessary, including overt genocide.

This needs to be remembered in discussions on who is winning the war.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I don't know, but my prediction remains: neither.

I've mentioned Kofman before, but here's his most recent analysis, of which I will give a written summary (and omit the irrelevant parts, e.g. lessons that can be learned by other militaries).

Ukraine is probably exaggerating the extent of their own losses after earlier exaggerating the extent of their successes, in an attempt to control/boost the international narrative.

How long it would take for anyone to remove the mines blocking Ukrainian ports is unknowable without access to the intelligence of the forces that put the mines there to begin with.

In a war of attrition rather than the manoeuvre war happening earlier, territorial changes are not as indicative of advantage as they once were, because they are smaller and because they do not clearly indicate how much is being lost by each side in manpower and materiel, rather than villages changing hands.

In the short term, Ukraine's Kherson counteroffensive is unlikely to take anything significant, although it may leave them in a better position for a later Kherson counteroffensive. Russia's offensive in the Donbas is more significant, but it will most likely culminate within the next 1-2 months.

Ukraine is currently in its most difficult phase since the first 3 weeks (when the main outcomes of the war were probably decided), since it is transitioning to different weapons systems while at war and as its Soviet/native weapons run out. They are likely to eventually get enough artillery (including rocket artillery), and the areas with the most pressing need for transition after these (i.e. where they are most likely to ask for more aid) are air defences and infantry fighting vehicles, of which they have a greater shortage than tanks. Attrition is also hitting Russia harder in infantry fighting vehicles than other areas; they risk running out of suitable IFVs long before they run out of tanks.

After Russia's offensive culminates, there will be an "operational pause" by both sides. The war of attrition means a lot of the best units have been lost on both sides, meaning morale is low, meaning there are fewer soldiers willing and able to attempt manoeuvre warfare. Both sides will use this pause to retrain and rebuild, but there simply isn't going to be the political will for a ceasefire. Instead, there will be small, fitful advances over a few villages and artillery duels.

Ukraine is likely to be able to take advantage of the pause first and will have a window of perhaps a few months in which to attempt a major counteroffensive, most likely targeting Kherson or Melitopol. Beforehand, as soon as Ukraine gets enough new guided rockets, they are likely to attack Snake Island with these systems and it could end up becoming "no man's land."

Ukraine may have more will to fight and manpower to raise, but Russia has the advantage in an isolated war of attrition because it has and can produce/repair more materiel. Ukraine currently has the advantage in the war of attrition, but only if the West remains committed to supporting it. I found it interesting that Kofman used "remains" here - maybe I'm reading too much into things, but he never indicates that Western support is too small to provide Ukraine with an overall advantage.

[Hnv1]

I don't see how the Ukraine losing a quarter (at least) of its territory by winter can claim any victory. Russian incompetence doesn't matter here.

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't see how the Ukraine losing a quarter (at least) of its territory by winter can claim any victory. Russian incompetence doesn't matter here.

After the Donbass, where else for Russia? Nowhere easy, for sure.

And the fact remains their leadership's aim was to utterly obliterate Ukraine and its people forever.

"Incompetence" doesn't come into that.

[Hnv1]

I don't see how the Ukraine losing a quarter (at least) of its territory by winter can claim any victory. Russian incompetence doesn't matter here.

After the Donbass, where else for Russia? Nowhere easy, for sure.

And the fact remains their leadership's aim was to utterly obliterate Ukraine and its people forever.

"Incompetence" doesn't come into that.

A failure by Russian standards does not translate to a Ukrainian victory.

After the Donbass they can aim to marginal gains in Zaporizhzhia Oblast, increase their foothold in Khrakov or attempt something more ambitious toward Nikolayev/Odessa. Or wrap the first partition of Ukraine with that.

[Torie]

There are no winners of this hideous war, cf WW I. That said, any "solution" as to which Russia/Putin thinks it got something for what it did that it is a net plus for it, is a bad solution.

Hey Russia, maybe you can keep the real estate that you realized from the death and destruction, but is it worth being consigned to living in the village of the damned outside fellow autocratic nations with leaders with sociopathic tendencies, or worse?

[PSOL]

There are no winners of this hideous war, cf WW I. That said, any "solution" as to which Russia/Putin thinks it got something for what it did that it is a net plus for it, is a bad solution.

Hey Russia, maybe you can keep the real estate that you realized from the death and destruction, but is it worth being consigned to living in the village of the damned outside fellow autocratic nations with leaders with sociopathic tendencies, or worse?

I think with hindsight it is evident that wage labourers, peasants, and the remaining slaves outside of industrialized countries were the biggest winners of that war.

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't see how the Ukraine losing a quarter (at least) of its territory by winter can claim any victory. Russian incompetence doesn't matter here.

After the Donbass, where else for Russia? Nowhere easy, for sure.

And the fact remains their leadership's aim was to utterly obliterate Ukraine and its people forever.

"Incompetence" doesn't come into that.

A failure by Russian standards does not translate to a Ukrainian victory.

True enough, but given who started the war the onus is maybe more on them to "win" it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would cautiously say Ukraine at this stage.

[Samof94]

I'm guessing Russia, though it gives me no joy to say this. I think it's becoming clear that Ukraine can only fight so long against a much stronger country. After this, the next GOP President will probably invade Canada, and China might invade Taiwan too.

Please don't post such rank stupidity ever again. Canada has nothing that we would want, let alone what a Republican President, let alone Trump (who almost certainly will be the next President) would invade over.

It's not about resources, it's because GOP politicians despise the Canadian government's progressive policies. Look at how Marjorie Greene and Matt Gaetz and Fox anchors bash Canada.

For now, endorsing an invasion of Canada is a fringe position. But eventually GOP politicians who oppose invading Canada will be primaried out until little by little, it becomes the GOP consensus that we should go to war with Canada. And just because I say it doesn't mean I'm happy about it; far from it.

Such a war would be impossible especially given nato states are Allies.

[Alben Barkley]

The fact that you think Ukraine has lost is the greatest news imaginable for them.

Also your claims of a war on Canada are unironically the most delusional and unhinged things I have ever read on this site if you’re even remotely serious.

I want you to think for a moment about how incredibly damning a statement that is.

Then I want you to please, for the love of god and whatever lingering thread of sanity you still have, TOUCH GRASS!!!

[Biden his time]

Russia