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

[Isaak]

...and a fast track EU application process.

There is no such thing as a fast track EU application process; and if there were, I don't see how Ukraine would qualify for it. In fact, I don't think it is likely that Ukraine will join the EU in the next 20+ years. Regardless of the war, it is a poor and deeply corrupt (Rank 116 in Transparency International's CPI – below the likes of Malawi, Morocco and Peru) country with countless structural flaws and a population large enough to be of serious concern. Given the heated debates about free movement rights and social benefits for 19 million Romanians and 7 million Bulgarians, I honestly fail to see how a majority in the European Council would be happy to have 43+ million Ukrainians joining the club. Especially since this would impose an enormous financial strain on the EU's budget.

Creating the impression that Ukraine may be joining the EU as some sort of reward (for what? for being attacked?) is certainly a nice performative gesture. But once the war is over – or has disappeared from the headlines – the priorities in Brussels will be different ones.

[Storr]

...and a fast track EU application process.

There is no such thing as a fast track EU application process; and if there were, I don't see how Ukraine would qualify for it. In fact, I don't think it is likely that Ukraine will join the EU in the next 20+ years. Regardless of the war, it is a poor and deeply corrupt (Rank 116 in Transparency International's CPI – below the likes of Malawi, Morocco and Peru) country with countless structural flaws and a population large enough to be of serious concern. Given the heated debates about free movement rights and social benefits for 19 million Romanians and 7 million Bulgarians, I honestly fail to see how a majority in the European Council would be happy to have 43+ million Ukrainians joining the club. Especially since this would impose an enormous financial strain on the EU's budget.

Creating the impression that Ukraine may be joining the EU as some sort of reward (for what? for being attacked?) is certainly a nice performative gesture. But once the war is over – or has disappeared from the headlines – the priorities in Brussels will be different ones.

Ukraine joining the EU will certainly take a long time. The benchmarks countries must meet to join the bloc aren't easy to reach.

In my opinion corruption isn't as big of an issue as how poor Ukraine is, to joining the EU. 116th is certainly bad, but it's not that far from other EU candidate countries. North Macedonia 85th, Moldova 91st, Albania and Serbia 101st, and Bosnia and Herzegovina 111th in Transparency International's CPI. 

Meanwhile, Ukraine (and Moldova) are significantly poorer than the Balkan candidate countries. Brussels would be very hesitant to grant membership to such a poor populous country, for the reasons you already mentioned. In fact, the only country to join the EU with a population similar to the size of Ukraine since the fall of communism is Poland. The worst outcome would be a larger Hungary, where an entrenched corrupt Ukrainian political elite uses EU funds for their own enrichment, not having any credible political opposition to keep them in check. The fear of an outcome like that would be another reason why the European Council would be weary of allowing Ukraine into the EU.

2021 GDP per capita, active EU candidate countries (from the World Bank, in USD):

Montenegro:                  $9,466
Sebia:                           $9,230
Bosnia and Herzegovina: $7,143
North Macedonia:           $6,695
Albania:                         $6,493
Moldova:                       $5,231
Ukraine:                        $4,836

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

...and a fast track EU application process.

There is no such thing as a fast track EU application process; and if there were, I don't see how Ukraine would qualify for it. In fact, I don't think it is likely that Ukraine will join the EU in the next 20+ years. Regardless of the war, it is a poor and deeply corrupt (Rank 116 in Transparency International's CPI – below the likes of Malawi, Morocco and Peru) country with countless structural flaws and a population large enough to be of serious concern. Given the heated debates about free movement rights and social benefits for 19 million Romanians and 7 million Bulgarians, I honestly fail to see how a majority in the European Council would be happy to have 43+ million Ukrainians joining the club. Especially since this would impose an enormous financial strain on the EU's budget.

Creating the impression that Ukraine may be joining the EU as some sort of reward (for what? for being attacked?) is certainly a nice performative gesture. But once the war is over – or has disappeared from the headlines – the priorities in Brussels will be different ones.

Ukraine joining the EU will certainly take a long time. The benchmarks countries must meet to join the bloc aren't easy to reach.

In my opinion corruption isn't as big of an issue as how poor Ukraine is, to joining the EU. 116th is certainly bad, but it's not that far from other EU candidate countries. North Macedonia 85th, Moldova 91st, Albania and Serbia 101st, and Bosnia and Herzegovina 111th in Transparency International's CPI. 

Meanwhile, Ukraine (and Moldova) are significantly poorer than the Balkan candidate countries. Brussels would be very hesitant to grant membership to such a poor populous country, for the reasons you already mentioned. In fact, the only country to join the EU with a population similar to the size of Ukraine since the fall of communism is Poland. The worst outcome would be a larger Hungary, where an entrenched corrupt Ukrainian political elite uses EU funds for their own enrichment, not having any credible political opposition to keep them in check. The fear of an outcome like that would be another reason why the European Council would be weary of allowing Ukraine into the EU.

2021 GDP per capita, active EU candidate countries (from the World Bank, in USD):

Montenegro:                  $9,466
Sebia:                           $9,230
Bosnia and Herzegovina: $7,143
North Macedonia:           $6,695
Albania:                         $6,493
Moldova:                       $5,231
Ukraine:                        $4,836

What did these numbers look like in 1989?

[Storr]

...and a fast track EU application process.

There is no such thing as a fast track EU application process; and if there were, I don't see how Ukraine would qualify for it. In fact, I don't think it is likely that Ukraine will join the EU in the next 20+ years. Regardless of the war, it is a poor and deeply corrupt (Rank 116 in Transparency International's CPI – below the likes of Malawi, Morocco and Peru) country with countless structural flaws and a population large enough to be of serious concern. Given the heated debates about free movement rights and social benefits for 19 million Romanians and 7 million Bulgarians, I honestly fail to see how a majority in the European Council would be happy to have 43+ million Ukrainians joining the club. Especially since this would impose an enormous financial strain on the EU's budget.

Creating the impression that Ukraine may be joining the EU as some sort of reward (for what? for being attacked?) is certainly a nice performative gesture. But once the war is over – or has disappeared from the headlines – the priorities in Brussels will be different ones.

Ukraine joining the EU will certainly take a long time. The benchmarks countries must meet to join the bloc aren't easy to reach.

In my opinion corruption isn't as big of an issue as how poor Ukraine is, to joining the EU. 116th is certainly bad, but it's not that far from other EU candidate countries. North Macedonia 85th, Moldova 91st, Albania and Serbia 101st, and Bosnia and Herzegovina 111th in Transparency International's CPI.  

Meanwhile, Ukraine (and Moldova) are significantly poorer than the Balkan candidate countries. Brussels would be very hesitant to grant membership to such a poor populous country, for the reasons you already mentioned. In fact, the only country to join the EU with a population similar to the size of Ukraine since the fall of communism is Poland. The worst outcome would be a larger Hungary, where an entrenched corrupt Ukrainian political elite uses EU funds for their own enrichment, not having any credible political opposition to keep them in check. The fear of an outcome like that would be another reason why the European Council would be weary of allowing Ukraine into the EU.

2021 GDP per capita, active EU candidate countries (from the World Bank, in USD):

Montenegro:                  $9,466
Sebia:                           $9,230
Bosnia and Herzegovina: $7,143
North Macedonia:           $6,695
Albania:                         $6,493
Moldova:                       $5,231
Ukraine:                        $4,836

What did these numbers look like in 1989?

GDP per capita based on the constant of the 2015 USD (using this statistic because looking at GDP per capita based on the USD value current to the year being looked at, doesn't adjust for inflation):
                                    
Montenegro (earliest year available 1997): $4,489        2021: $7,351  
Sebia (e.y.a 1995):                                  $2,781         2021: $7,114
Bosnia and Herzegovina: (e.y.a 1994):      $648            2021: $5,893
(1994 was in the middle of the Bosnian War of Independence)
North Macedonia (e.y.a 1990):                 $3,568         2021: $5,287
Albania (1989):                                       $1,809         2021: $4,831
Moldova (e.y.a 1995):                              $1.502         2021: $3,695
Ukraine (1989):                                       $3,330         2021: $2,452
(The GDP per capita decrease in Ukraine happened in the 90s, by 1998 the GDP per capita reached its low point at $1,318.)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

GDP per capita based on the constant of the 2015 USD (using this because looking at GDP per capita based on the current USD vale doesn't adjust for inflation):
                                    
Montenegro (earliest year available 1997): $4,489        2021: $7,351  
Sebia (e.y.a 1995):                                  $2,781         2021: $7,114
Bosnia and Herzegovina: (e.y.a 1994):      $648            2021: $5,893
(1994 was in the middle of the Bosnian War of Independence)
North Macedonia (e.y.a 1990):                 $3,568         2021: $5,287
Albania (1989):                                       $1,809         2021: $4,831
Moldova (e.y.a 1995):                              $1.502         2021: $3,695
Ukraine (1989):                                       $3,330         2021: $2,452
(The GDP per capita decrease in Ukraine happened in the 90s, by 1998 the GDP per capita reached its low point at $1,318.)

Interesting.
Ukraine, IIRC, was among the areas that the Soviets really developed the most (Zaphorizhia, Chernobyl, industry along coastal cities, etc), so it makes sense it was most harmed by the balkanization of the Soviet economic sphere.
Donetsk/Lug-ansk/other coastal cities may as well be the heart of Ukraine's Rust Belt.

[CanadianDemocrat]

...and a fast track EU application process.

There is no such thing as a fast track EU application process; and if there were, I don't see how Ukraine would qualify for it. In fact, I don't think it is likely that Ukraine will join the EU in the next 20+ years. Regardless of the war, it is a poor and deeply corrupt (Rank 116 in Transparency International's CPI – below the likes of Malawi, Morocco and Peru) country with countless structural flaws and a population large enough to be of serious concern. Given the heated debates about free movement rights and social benefits for 19 million Romanians and 7 million Bulgarians, I honestly fail to see how a majority in the European Council would be happy to have 43+ million Ukrainians joining the club. Especially since this would impose an enormous financial strain on the EU's budget.

Creating the impression that Ukraine may be joining the EU as some sort of reward (for what? for being attacked?) is certainly a nice performative gesture. But once the war is over – or has disappeared from the headlines – the priorities in Brussels will be different ones.

Before the 2013 Euromaidan revolution, that was true about Ukraine. Ukraine had a corrupt pro Russian President for around half of the time since Ukrainian independence in 1991. Ukraine still has issues with corruption, but it has improved a lot since 2013 on corruption, rule of law and being a liberal democracy.

The long term trend of Ukrainian anti corruption laws is strengthening. I could see Ukraine being admitted to the EU in the next 3-5 years.

[Torie]

...and a fast track EU application process.

There is no such thing as a fast track EU application process; and if there were, I don't see how Ukraine would qualify for it. In fact, I don't think it is likely that Ukraine will join the EU in the next 20+ years. Regardless of the war, it is a poor and deeply corrupt (Rank 116 in Transparency International's CPI – below the likes of Malawi, Morocco and Peru) country with countless structural flaws and a population large enough to be of serious concern. Given the heated debates about free movement rights and social benefits for 19 million Romanians and 7 million Bulgarians, I honestly fail to see how a majority in the European Council would be happy to have 43+ million Ukrainians joining the club. Especially since this would impose an enormous financial strain on the EU's budget.

Creating the impression that Ukraine may be joining the EU as some sort of reward (for what? for being attacked?) is certainly a nice performative gesture. But once the war is over – or has disappeared from the headlines – the priorities in Brussels will be different ones.

Ukraine joining the EU will certainly take a long time. The benchmarks countries must meet to join the bloc aren't easy to reach.

In my opinion corruption isn't as big of an issue as how poor Ukraine is, to joining the EU. 116th is certainly bad, but it's not that far from other EU candidate countries. North Macedonia 85th, Moldova 91st, Albania and Serbia 101st, and Bosnia and Herzegovina 111th in Transparency International's CPI. 

Meanwhile, Ukraine (and Moldova) are significantly poorer than the Balkan candidate countries. Brussels would be very hesitant to grant membership to such a poor populous country, for the reasons you already mentioned. In fact, the only country to join the EU with a population similar to the size of Ukraine since the fall of communism is Poland. The worst outcome would be a larger Hungary, where an entrenched corrupt Ukrainian political elite uses EU funds for their own enrichment, not having any credible political opposition to keep them in check. The fear of an outcome like that would be another reason why the European Council would be weary of allowing Ukraine into the EU.

2021 GDP per capita, active EU candidate countries (from the World Bank, in USD):

Montenegro:                  $9,466
Sebia:                           $9,230
Bosnia and Herzegovina: $7,143
North Macedonia:           $6,695
Albania:                         $6,493
Moldova:                       $5,231
Ukraine:                        $4,836

Here is the chart of nations. I see that certain tax haven more commonly known as Ireland has now broken into six figures at 100K+. Bless them. Even if I were a "Prot" in NI, I would want to hook up with them ASAP.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true

[Torie]

The thrust of this article is that a "forever war" is most likely, with pessimism that there is a viable way out of the forever box.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/3/2/what-history-shows-how-will-the-war-in-ukraine-end

[jaichind]

Something similar to  Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict since the 1990s.  Russia makes some more gains but then after that runs out of steam.  Ukraine tries to counterattack but mostly fails.  Both sides become exhausted and fighting stops with no peace but instead and off low-intensity conflict along the front over the next decade or two.  The economy of both sides was clearly harmed by the war with the impact on Ukraine being very significant with it becoming a big resource sinkhole for US-EU in the coming decade and likely two.

[TheReckoning]

Something similar to  Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict since the 1990s.  Russia makes some more gains but then after that runs out of steam.  Ukraine tries to counterattack but mostly fails.  Both sides become exhausted and fighting stops with no peace but instead and off low-intensity conflict along the front over the next decade or two.  The economy of both sides was clearly harmed by the war with the impact on Ukraine being very significant with it becoming a big resource sinkhole for US-EU in the coming decade and likely two.

Will the West lift sanctions on Russia anytime before a formal peace treaty/ceasefire happens?

[Hnv1]

The ceasefire lines will be whatever lines the Ukrainians get to after their spring offensive.

[Epaminondas]

There's the big question of how many men Ukraine might still mobilise.
From a prewar population of 43m, they now have around 35, of which just under 6m are men between 20 and 45.

Assuming a third of those could be mobilised without destroying the little economy that's left, that's a maximum of 2m soldiers, 20% of which have been knocked out of action in the past year (100k KIA, 300k injured).

That sounds insufficient to retake all territory if the RSU entrenches itself for the next year, so I fear the conflict will not end before 2025 one way or another.

I see that certain tax haven more commonly known as Ireland has now broken into six figures at 100K+. Bless them. Even if I were a "Prot" in NI, I would want to hook up with them ASAP.

Funny (it's Prod though, due to Belfast t's).

However this is danger of using one stat to conclude: in fact NI services bankrolled by London are inordinately better developed than what you might infer; and conversely public services (healthcare, transport, pensions...) are starved of tax revenue and badly underdeveloped in the Republic.

As a result, low-skill workers have it better in the North than the South - so you probably wouldn't consider "hooking up" if you were reborn as a Prod in Antrim.

[jaichind]

Something similar to  Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict since the 1990s.  Russia makes some more gains but then after that runs out of steam.  Ukraine tries to counterattack but mostly fails.  Both sides become exhausted and fighting stops with no peace but instead and off low-intensity conflict along the front over the next decade or two.  The economy of both sides was clearly harmed by the war with the impact on Ukraine being very significant with it becoming a big resource sinkhole for US-EU in the coming decade and likely two.

Will the West lift sanctions on Russia anytime before a formal peace treaty/ceasefire happens?

Like with Cuba, the sanctions will be around in the long term especially when there will not be any formal peace.  But like Cuba, the international trading system will operate in a way to work around it with a clear cost to Russia as well as on those that impose them.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

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

Thank you.

Now it has become completely clear that Putin is nothing more than Piglet under Winnie the Pooh. The West is not facing Russia, but China. It's Putin's style to keep the war hot for two years and then leave it languidly smoldering forever, but we don't know Xi's style yet. The PRC makes war unpredictable.

Luckily, the Ukrainians are capable of launching unpredictable counter-offensives that are incredibly powerful, so there is a chance that Xi will be satisfied with his second North Korea and give up trying to include Ukraine in it.