top | item 35312713

(no title)

crispyporkbites | 2 years ago

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

discuss

order

potatototoo99|2 years 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.

_kbh_|2 years 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.

khochesh_kushat|2 years 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.

polotics|2 years 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.

dragonwriter|2 years 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|2 years 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|2 years 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.

ohgodplsno|2 years ago

>The west can't feed them with sufficient arms and ammunition to keep up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...

Russia is pulling out T54s on the battlefront, their T14 Armatas are still busy breaking down on red square, their planes are scared shitless and don't even dare fly close to the frontline, they're blindly firing S300s/S400s as a poor man's Grad, versus a Ukraine that receives 5% of the previous generation of crap from the western world. Add to that a highly motivated army (versus whatever clownery the russian army is) and Ukrainians that would rather see their entire country disappear than give in, because they remember the Holodomor.

Russia won't fall, but it sure as hell won't win.