The thread on thoughts over time as to how and when the Ukraine war will end
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:28:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  The thread on thoughts over time as to how and when the Ukraine war will end
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The thread on thoughts over time as to how and when the Ukraine war will end  (Read 1434 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 25, 2023, 03:43:02 PM »
« edited: February 27, 2023, 10:18:00 AM by Torie »

I think this deserves its own thread, as to how the Ukraine War will be resolved. If Virginia thinks otherwise, she can merge it into the day by day, hour by hour thread, with the good stuff and the spam stuff, and the propaganda stuff (I really, really dislike those videos of the killing played to patriotic, or even worse, rock music - yuck - death is not uplifting!), the good, the bad and the ugly, all wrapped up into one.

Anyway, the Guardian has an article on the subject of possible end games.  

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/24/how-might-the-ukraine-war-end

Here is another that I found singularly worthless (there are a lot like these out there):

https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end/

Myself, I don’t see either side agreeing to any written peace agreement, or even a cease fire. If Putin gave up his gains, he’s dead. Zelensky cannot not and will sign away any Ukrainian territory, certainly not any territory taken by Putin in the past year.

So that leaves us where? It seems to me given the West’s problems in producing arms, and general disorganization, that it’s unlikely that any time soon, Ukraine will have the amount of munitions it needs, and high-tech stuff it needs, to wear down Russian forces and slice through its lines. But Ukraine will have enough to probably hold most of what it still has. It seems more likely that despite the utter horror of it all, the blood and costs and trade disruptions will just go on and on, certainly through the Biden presidency.

So, the issue is does the West, and in particular the US, or Biden at least, just keep doing what it is doing, the stalemate sort of potential solution, and just suck up all the attendant horrors etc. as described above, as the 2024 election is conducted (frightening thought that really given who the most likely opposition to Biden is at present), or does the US and UK (Germany and France seem to be increasingly beside the point), ramp it up, and over time get to Ukraine much more lethal weapons, with the armaments industry ramped up, so that maybe this fall, or maybe next year, or maybe the year after, Ukraine finally has what it takes to slice through, and Putin to be pushed out of a window?

I really don’t know which is more likely to happen, but one of the two options, a seeming never ending stalemate type war that goes on for a very long time, with spurts of activity and them maybe less activity, or a gradually ramp up of Ukraine’s capacities, that finally tips the balance, and Russia and Putin go down, seem to be by far the most likely.

I suppose a codicil is just how realistic is it to have a deal where Ukraine signs away Crimea, and Russia signs away the rest, and to the West, with Ukraine a part of the West, militarily and otherwise. I don’t think that is very realistic either.

More and more experts don’t see any end game really, with neither side being able to agree to much of anything, and they just kind of throw up their hands, and see nothing but an endless war with no end in sight, or offer up scenarios I find wholly unrealistic (signing pieces of paper and peace is at hand) and thus this thread. The experts are just not much help as to what the end game will actually end up being, and when. It is probably not their fault. This war is just that horrible, and Putin that sociopathic.

Anyway, given the current intellectual vacuum on the topic, the idea here is to discuss end games and how long it will take, as events unfold, and more information becomes available. It is not to discuss the events of the day in Ukraine, and certainly not to post spam, or anything remotely like it. It's about focusing like a laser beam on this one topic.

To start, I have posted my rambling thoughts. What are yours, be they rambling or incisive?

Thank you.
Logged
Red Velvet
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,015
Brazil


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2023, 04:09:52 PM »
« Edited: February 25, 2023, 04:27:07 PM by Red Velvet »

For Russia to voluntarily stop, they probably need a partial victory to save face at home. Crimea they already had before the war, so I would imagine their minimal acceptable goals is keeping the area they already conquered in the Donbass region and the land connection to Crimea. Otherwise they would just keep on regardless of casualties as there’s no way to spin a defeat for less.

So I guess:

- War becomes unsustainable for both sides (economic or militarily) and they sign this peace deal with the help of third party actors where Ukraine gives up the area the Russian already occupy while the rest immediately enters NATO/EU and Russia begrudgingly accept.

- War becomes unsustainable for Ukraine and West isn’t willing to enter the war directly, which will push Ukrainians to find a more flexible deal instead of the current one (where it’s all or nothing), like the one I described in previous scenario. Russia can keep going on though, so they push it until they get all Ukraine and probably Moldova as well.

- War becomes unsustainable for Ukraine and West is willing to enter the war by sending people to fight, prolonging the war beyond its natural end and cementing this as the new WWIII. Global divides between Western world and non-Western grow as places like China and others sees the West getting involved even in a non-NATO country as a direct attack on Russia instead of defense since they aren’t being attacked. Nationalism grows everywhere and the conflict becomes even more undefined, but I suppose the West wins if no one directly joins the conflict to fight alongside Russia. However, if China invades Taiwan, that makes things way more complicated as the US (the main finance/military support of Ukraine) would divide attentions and complicate stuff much more since Taiwan is more important to US economy than Ukraine.

- War becomes unsustainable for Russia without Western direct entrance (Honestly, least likely scenario IMO because of the numbers). Ukraine reclaims Occupied Areas + Crimea and joins NATO, humiliating Russia and stimulating a domestic backlash on Putin. But instead of becoming more liberal, Russia gets a much more nationalist guy as resentment from defeat is strong, alongside economic consequences being for nothing. Russia stays isolated by the West but to a lesser extent and plans to eventually get their revenge after getting back on their feet.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2023, 04:22:00 PM »

I take it your 4 possible endings are in order of likelihood. How about the when bit? If long enough out, then one of yours might come close to matching the endless war scenario that I listed as one of the two most likely "endings," at the moment.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2023, 04:27:10 PM »

Ukraine gaining back most of its territory minus Crimea is my guess an frankly I don’t get where this growing argument that Ukraine can’t dislodge Russia from its holdings is based on? It seems that this argument is based on the fact Ukraine has been playing defense since they got Kherson back so it seems these people are believing Ukraine is punched out offensive wise. But most of the best sources/experts on the war argue that Ukraine has been playing defense because they want to wait until spring/western tanks arrive to make their move as they unlike Russia don’t want to waste manpower and resources in failed attacks or little gain like Russia does in Bakmut and Vuhledar
Logged
Red Velvet
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,015
Brazil


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2023, 06:23:23 PM »

I take it your 4 possible endings are in order of likelihood. How about the when bit? If long enough out, then one of yours might come close to matching the endless war scenario that I listed as one of the two most likely "endings," at the moment.

In years. Whatever the final outcome is, I don’t think this ends in this year or in the next one. Possibly between 2025-2030 but maybe more likely between 2030-2040.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2023, 08:19:18 PM »

It's clear that Putin can't admit a defeat as long as he's in power. He's just as afraid of heights as anyone else. There will be no grand peace treaty as long as he's alive.

Buuuut, as long as he doesn't admit a defeat, he can always claim his special military operation is going as planned. It's just like in 1984, where the war is waged in perpetuity not to actually gain territory, but for its own sake. Part of me thinks it's not in Putin's interest to see a Russian victory. Why? Because if there was one, there will be a generation of war heroes who could potentially threaten his power in the Kremlin. We saw how Putin choked off the Wagner Group, because Prigozhin had started hogging the attention. Putin can't allow any more war heroes to emerge.

From Putin's perspective, a loss of the four oblasts of mainland Ukraine might be a positive, since he would be able to purge the military of any potential rivals, and get rid of the Wagner Group and other private militia. At that point, he could then claim that the Kiev regime has been successfully denazified, and announce the next phase of the special military operation. In this case, the Russia-Ukraine border resembles the Korean DMZ, where no peace treaty is signed, but both sides agree not to wage any serious actions.

That would be a win-win for Putin. He could claim that Russia is at war and needs a strong leader as the helm, and hence justify building a police state. He can justify the country's economic problems on the perpetual war, and even stage false flag attacks by " Ukrainian terrorists". It will still be difficult for Ukraine to join the EU and NATO, when there's a simmering conflict on the eastern border. Best of all, the Europeans will lose interest in sanctions, and the oil money will flow again. Yes, the country will be a basket case, with its military little more than a parade force. And yes, there will probably be a civil war after Putin dies, but Putin is safe as long as he's alive.

I'm not sure about the Crimea, though. Putin can't afford to lose it, but if the Ukrainians reach the Azov Sea coast, they could simply fire missiles at the bridge and make Russian control over the Crimea increasingly untenable. But Putin will definitely do whatever he can to keep the Crimea. It's possible that the west will tell the Ukrainians to let go the Crimea for that reason.

Just a few cents.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2023, 08:29:52 PM »

The Soviets eventually withdrew from Afghanistan, didn't they. Although it required, among other things, a change of leadership in the Kremlin. A change brought about by the deaths of the previous leaders. Brezhnev was 75, Andropov 69, and Chernenko 73. Vladimir Putin turns 71 this year.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,093
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2023, 06:44:46 AM »

Putin will die (old age, whatever it is he has or murdered) and the new leadership in Russia will stop the war (with a deal that lets Russia off the hook for paying for damages and no or little turn over of war criminals....they might give us some they want to get rid of).  Hopefully sooner than later.


but I'm an optimist
Logged
Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom
theflyingmongoose
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,296
Norway


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2023, 09:04:07 AM »

Ukraine gaining back most of its territory minus Crimea is my guess an frankly I don’t get where this growing argument that Ukraine can’t dislodge Russia from its holdings is based on? It seems that this argument is based on the fact Ukraine has been playing defense since they got Kherson back so it seems these people are believing Ukraine is punched out offensive wise. But most of the best sources/experts on the war argue that Ukraine has been playing defense because they want to wait until spring/western tanks arrive to make their move as they unlike Russia don’t want to waste manpower and resources in failed attacks or little gain like Russia does in Bakmut and Vuhledar

It's wishcasting by anti-west enthusiasts.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2023, 10:22:08 AM »

Getting whomever runs Russia at the time to believe that it is quite likely that it will lose Crimea with the land and sea bridges severed and ordinance raining down on it, seems perhaps one of the more promising ways to persuade it to smell the roses and cut its losses.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2023, 12:05:20 PM »

Ukraine ultimately regains most of its territory (the Donbas included), with the possible exception of the Crimea.  It ultimately becomes like Finland (prior to it joining NATO), with close ties to the West, having joined the European Union and with a close working relationship with NATO, but also maintaining relations with Russia out of sheer necessity despite the recent conflict.  
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2023, 05:16:46 PM »

Winds down to a low-intensity conflict in the east until a change of leadership in Russia.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2023, 05:33:47 PM »

In principle, without substantial aid from China, Russia's war-making abilities will be strongly degraded by this coming winter, and in the presence of continued Western aid Ukraine should be able to reconquer most lost territories. Kind of paradoxically I suspect that there'll be more Western distaste for arming Ukraine if they're obviously advancing, since it is easier to sell aid for a side that is clearly losing than one that seems to be doing fine. (The scenario under which the Russian effort collapses, especially if the collapse is pretty sudden, is probably the most dangerous one with respect to WMD use. It is also conceivable that the Russian effort might collapse when there is a change in leadership, such as when Putin dies, but I think Putin is unlikely to leave power over the next year, and under present conditions it really doesn't seem like Russia has the materiel to fight for very much longer.)

In the presence of aid from China, at current speeds there's no reason the war couldn't go on for a very long period of time; like a decade or so. Under these conditions Russia probably eventually takes a Pyrrhic victory, because after a certain point it really will be true that they can throw more bodies at the front than the Ukrainians can. Ukraine "wins" in the event of a direct 1991-style Western intervention, but it seems like this is very unlikely to happen in a collapse scenario. Even more generally, I loathe to say something like 'under these conditions the war could continue for a decade', because it feels impossible to tell what the most salient differences will be between the world of 2023 and the world of 2033.
Logged
oldtimer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2023, 08:03:27 PM »

The Yugoslav wars went on for 4 years until Paula Jones got Bill Clinton in trouble in court.
Logged
Storr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,094
Moldova, Republic of


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2023, 02:44:07 AM »
« Edited: February 27, 2023, 03:07:33 AM by Storr »

What I think will happen:

I believe the war will grind into even more of a stalemate than it already is. I don't know if there will be a formal stop to the fighting anytime soon (unlikely imo), but fighting will settle into static warfare. There will be very miniscule to no advancements by either side, like what the war in Donbass settled into after the fall of Debaltseve in early 2015. Most people will consider the war to have come to a stalemate, with neither side willing to stop the fighting or make peace until next year.

Maybe in 2024 or 2025 a Korea-style ceasefire is agreed to. Neither side recognizes the territorial claims of the other, but at least the killing has stopped. The border between Russian and Ukrainian controlled territory is heavily reinforced, similar to the Korean DMZ.

Ukraine is already a de facto NATO country due to the war. I doubt Russia would try such a large scale multi axis invasion again. Ukraine's military will be more than capable of defending itself, molding itself into a "always ready" defensive force similar to Finland or Israel. The future of the country is much more dependent on EU membership than NATO membership. It certainly deserves it, but Brussels is going to be Brussels and make the process last at least 15 years.

What I hope will happen, but know has a very tiny chance of happening:

Ukraine retakes territory up to its 1991 borders, except for Crimea. I don't think if Ukraine would be able to retake Crimea in any scenario. The population there (except for the small remaining population of Crimean Tatars) is very pro-Russian, much more so than even in the Donbass. Thus Ukraine loses one of its best and strongest advantages in this war: fighting on friendly (at least more or less friendly in the Donbass) home turf in Crimea.

The EU gives Ukraine membership in 5 years through an accelerated process, in light of the extraordinary circumstances. Ukraine adopts the Euro in 2035.



More assorted thoughts on the war:

We are reaching a point where it's very difficult for either side to conduct offensive operations. We've seen how long it has taken the Russians to make progress in Bakhmut, and the Ukrainians haven't had any significant offensives since the Russians withdrew from the right bank of the Dnipro River. Maybe Ukraine will gain a significant advantage due to western weapons and technology, but I'm very skeptical.

Neither side is willing to compromise at the moment. Russia thinks it can outlast the West's support for Ukraine, believing public support for aiding Ukraine will decline if no end seems in sight. They feel this will lead western countries to putting pressure on Ukraine to make peace on less than favorable terms. Ukraine thinks it can retake more territory from the Russians, possibly even to the country's 1991 borders. They feel that if they do not retake occupied territory during the current conflict where Russia's military has been significantly weakened, Russia will consolidate its control over those lands and regain its strength, ceding those lands to Russian control.

There will be no negotiated peace as long as Putin is in power. Once he annexed Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson Oblasts, he staked his entire regime on the outcome of this war.

Ukraine won't entertain any idea of a ceasefire because they believe any pause in fighting will simply allow Russia to rebuild its forces. If not in the current conflict, the Ukrainians believe these re-strengthened units would simply be used to attack Ukraine again in a few years.

I believed the Donbass would become another example of a classic Russian "frozen conflict". Putin had other ideas. He seems to truly believe in the "Slavic Trinity" of Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians as one people. This war isn't about NATO. You don't go to war over one country planning to join a military alliance, with said alliance keeping that country decades away from receiving actual membership. Unless Putin has truly lost his marbles, there's no way he truly thought "the West" was planning to invade or attack Russia. More than anything this is about Putin not wanting to be the Russian leader to "lose" Ukraine. This applies in both the geopolitical/strategic (losing economic and political influence to the EU/NATO) and cultural contexts (losing a brother people, part of the "Greater Russian nation").

I simply don't believe Ukrainian forces are strong enough to retake all territory up to their 1991 borders or even pre-Feb. 24 territory unless the Russians decide to leave (like in the Kyiv and Kherson areas), which they aren't going to. 100 Leopard 2's won't enable Ukraine to retake Donetsk city. Maybe Melitopol and Berdyansk (with all of the other western military aide), but that's still a huge maybe.


Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2023, 02:56:06 AM »

Probably a Korean style ceasefire after it stalemates.
Logged
Lord Halifax
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,304
Papua New Guinea


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2023, 04:39:24 AM »


I don't think if Ukraine would be able to retake Crimea in any scenario. The population there (except for the small remaining population of Crimean Tatars) is very pro-Russian, much more so than even in the Donbass. Thus Ukraine loses one of its best and strongest advantages in this war: fighting on friendly (at least more or less friendly in the Donbass) home turf in Crimea.

I see Crimea as much more realistic than reconquering the Donbass, simply because the latter borders Russia itself.

If Ukraine is able to cut the land bridge (big if..) they should by now have enough long range missiles to be able to stop most of the Russian supplies coming into Crimea by sea, air and across the bridge, if so the Russians (incl. the settlers) would eventually either have to leave or surrender. I don't see why Ukraine would have to actually invade Crimea to take it back, at least not before such an invasion would mostly be a mopping-up operation.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2023, 07:32:03 AM »

The Yugoslav wars went on for 4 years until Paula Jones got Bill Clinton in trouble in court.

Eh?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2023, 11:06:34 AM »

I believed the Donbass would become another example of a classic Russian "frozen conflict". Putin had other ideas. He seems to truly believe in the "Slavic Trinity" of Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians as one people. This war isn't about NATO. You don't go to war over one country planning to join a military alliance, with said alliance keeping that country decades away from receiving actual membership. Unless Putin has truly lost his marbles, there's no way he truly thought "the West" was planning to invade or attack Russia. More than anything this is about Putin not wanting to be the Russian leader to "lose" Ukraine. This applies in both the geopolitical/strategic (losing economic and political influence to the EU/NATO) and cultural contexts (losing a brother people, part of the "Greater Russian nation").


Blinken clearly agrees with you. As you no doubt have heard, Blinken got Lavrov in a room alone a couple of months before the invasion, which Blinken knew was coming, unless Putin chose to change course, and asked him if the Russian concern was about security, and NATO expansion, in which event talks he thought would be productive and allay Russia's concerns, or was it about Putin mystical belief in a restoration of the Slavic Trinity that overrode any other consideration. Lavrov said nothing in response and left the room.

So if Putin will never give up his mystical beliefs, predicting the future needs to take that into account.
Logged
oldtimer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2023, 03:07:13 PM »

The Yugoslav wars went on for 4 years until Paula Jones got Bill Clinton in trouble in court.

Eh?
Everytime Bill Clinton had a sex scandal, he bombed a country.
It inspired Wag the Dog.



Unfortunately or not, Biden is probably too old to have sex, though I'm sure he had plenty of it when he was younger.

Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2023, 04:11:06 PM »

The Yugoslav wars went on for 4 years until Paula Jones got Bill Clinton in trouble in court.

Eh?
Everytime Bill Clinton had a sex scandal, he bombed a country.
It inspired Wag the Dog.



Unfortunately or not, Biden is probably too old to have sex, though I'm sure he had plenty of it when he was younger.



Gonna leave a comment here purely to note that this is an excellent movie that my AP Government class watched back in 2014. Good times.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2023, 04:28:51 PM »

I don't think if Ukraine would be able to retake Crimea in any scenario. The population there (except for the small remaining population of Crimean Tatars) is very pro-Russian, much more so than even in the Donbass. Thus Ukraine loses one of its best and strongest advantages in this war: fighting on friendly (at least more or less friendly in the Donbass) home turf in Crimea.

I see Crimea as much more realistic than reconquering the Donbass, simply because the latter borders Russia itself.

If Ukraine is able to cut the land bridge (big if..) they should by now have enough long range missiles to be able to stop most of the Russian supplies coming into Crimea by sea, air and across the bridge, if so the Russians (incl. the settlers) would eventually either have to leave or surrender. I don't see why Ukraine would have to actually invade Crimea to take it back, at least not before such an invasion would mostly be a mopping-up operation.

Crimea is even more ideal for a Kherson-style campaign to starve the Russian forces of resources than Kherson itself. The larger distance from mainland Russia and the huge amount of logistical support an active defense of the peninsula would require a lot of ships if the Kerch road & rail bridges went down. Note that Russian ferry services scaled down significantly following the opening of the Kerch bridge, so it's not as simple as just going back to what they did pre-bridge. Prices were pretty high for staples and fuel before the bridge, so I can't imagine what it would be with a huge military operation going on there and more limited shipping capacity.

This strategy is contingent on Ukraine reaching the Azov Sea coast and cutting the Russian's Crimean land bridge, and will require a lot of long-range missiles and drones, though. Not sure they can get all the types of weapons they would need, unfortunately. This is where Ukraine not really having a significant, operational defense industry is hurting their combat potential. On the upside, those GLSDB munitions with 150km range would be ideal for at least some of their objectives in a Crimea campaign, though.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,893


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2023, 06:16:06 PM »

Obviously, for those who have seen my posts on the main thread for the war, I take a somewhat rosy view of where the Ukrainians currently stand. So this is my rosy perspective on how the war will develop.

I don't think a stalemate at approximately where the lines currently stand at is likely. Ukraine doesn't want that, obviously, but Russia doesn't either. Russian news, supporters, and the administration aren't painting what has happened so far as a mission accomplished, only as a step in the right direction. The ongoing Russian offensive and continued desperate attempts to seize Bakhmut at all costs are also good signs that the Russians aren't satisfied with the status quo either. Say what you will about Russia wanting to grind down the Ukrainian army, but with their subpar tactics and equipment I just don't think they have the men for that. I believe it was Woodbury who at one point a few weeks back derisively mentioned that the Ukrainians have received military aid well over the yearly Russian military budget. I'd bet we are  past the point where the average Ukrainian soldier is better equipped and in the totality of circumstances more capable on the battlefield than the average Russian one. People have raised a lot of concerns about potentially dwindling NATO stocks that can be supplied to the Ukrainians, but I don't think the infamously corrupt, inefficient, and above all else small Russian manufacturing sector is capable of increasing or even sustaining the current level of Russian military aggression for that long. It can already be seen that Russian artillery usage is way lower in this offensive than it was during their offensive last summer.  Western problems with armaments are ultimately much easier to solve than Russian ones because bureaucracy and indecision are much easier issues to deal with than lack of capacity, wealth, and manpower.

The only open question, to me, is what Putin does to avert the loss of more territory and make a good claim at winning. Since he can't fix his small and inefficient economy and his options for receiving large amounts of outside help are limited at best, the only choice is to throw more men at the problem. Is he willing to keep mobilizing new waves until there are enough Russians under arms to win at all costs? Clearly he can't just order as many as possible; just look at how almost no one from Moscow was mobilized. I don't think there's any doubt that he could just overwhelm the Ukrainians with another million men under arms, but he isn't going to do that. The need of Putin to avoid serious disturbances in the life of ordinary Russians for political reasons is what gives me the most hope for Ukrainian war effort.
 
My prediction is that the Russians continue throwing men at fortified Ukrainian positions in the Donbas for the next few weeks before being forced by losses, the weather, and the ability to declare victory after finally FINALLY taking Bakhmut to taper down their attacks. I expect when the Ukrainian offensive happens in March that it will, wherever it ends up being aimed, be successful at reaching the sea and cutting off the southern supply route. I think that further Ukrainian advances will push the line towards Donetsk and Crimea. Putin does order another round of mobilization, but it isn't enough to do more than make painful and slow advances in the Donbass and stop further Ukrainian progress. The war at that point turns into something like a stalemate with Russia eventually getting Crimea, most of Luhansk and about the half of Donetsk they control now plus or minus bits like Mariupol or Bakhmut. The Ukrainians get NATO membership in all-but-name including one-on-one security guarantees from several NATO countries and a fast track EU application process.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2023, 07:14:05 PM »

Nice post Dereich. I very much appreciate the thoughtful contributions made by participants in the thread, which is basically all of you. Thank you!

"The war at that point turns into something like a stalemate with Russia eventually getting Crimea, most of Luhansk and about the half of Donetsk they control now plus or minus bits like Mariupol or Bakhmut."

Is the "get" word that you used by virtue of a written deal, or just where the lines are where when further fighting seems no longer feasible or productive as perceived by both Russia and Ukriane, and Ukraine gets something more that they can count on from the West going forward, that Russia going for a redux will be met by NATO military assets in addition to Ukraine's, so it is willing to go with that particular Hobson's choice from its point of view?

It goes without saying that Ukraine will need a lot of foreign aid, once we know that that reconstruction will not be subject to again be reduced to rubble. That will give America first people, and the usual suspects elsewhere, something else to complain about. May they all, in the absence of hell, be put on ignore.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2023, 08:41:29 PM »

It goes without saying that Ukraine will need a lot of foreign aid, once we know that that reconstruction will not be subject to again be reduced to rubble. That will give America first people, and the usual suspects elsewhere, something else to complain about. May they all, in the absence of hell, be put on ignore.

On this point, as a citizen of a country that has been among the top per capita supporters of Ukraine, I will be skeptical about the tax dollars of western countries going to Ukraine's reconstruction, without a very, very critical condition: that the Ukrainian government must somehow make its own oligarchs and wealthy individuals to pitch in. Maybe the government can force them to buy reconstruction bonds, which they could sell on the secondary market after X years, or something similar. Just as the west only provided Ukraine with military assistance once Ukrainians demonstrated they were willing to put their lives on the line, the west should only provide Ukraine with economic reconstruction assistance if Ukraine's wealthiest people also put their own wealth on the line.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 12 queries.