Who do you think will "win" the war in Ukraine?

[ArrowNik]

How do you think the war in Ukraine will end? Choose an option in the survey and if you like, detail your answer in the comments explaining why you chose that option and how you think we will get there

RUSSIA

UKRAINE

There will be a diplomatic settlement, no military solution

The situation will escalate into a global nuclear conflict

[monorprise]

At the moment with Joe Biden calling up 3000 U. S. Troop to answer his Ukrainian employer Zelenskyy's realistic assessment that they can't win the war without NATO troops fighting it.

It seems very much more likely this will end in nuclear war, as they keep escalating it giving more and more weapons, making our destruction ever more necessary to the security of the Russian state.

How do you think Russia will respond if we did somehow give the Ukraine the upper hand, and invaded territory Russia claims as it's own?
Russia would be forced to use nuclear weapons to defend their territory.

They are NOT going to back-down as Our arrogant leaders seem to think. Theses same leader have been caught openly supporting the idea of regime change in Russia.

The moment that becomes a realistic possibility with Russian armies losing in Russian territory, what reasonable person doesn't think Russia won't use their nukes to protect their own state?

Who think's that won't result in NATO regarding the same 'unprovoked' and savage attack as more justification for their own goals leading to more nukes and ultimately total war as it becomes necessary to try and disarm the other.

Leaders always think the other will backdown and stop but they never do. I state's could agree to respect each-other's rules, they would not be at war in the first place.

[Soteris]

That is incorrect. Biden calling up reserves is part of an operation called "Atlantic Resolve" which started in 2014. This is not in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is something that has been going on for almost a decade already and is just a political power play.

If Russia launches nukes then they lose. Everyone knows this. Putin knows this. What you are arguing for is literally that Putin rather wants to lose everything compared to losing something with practically no value to him and his country since it was never even part of them.

Personally, I am not really concerned if Russia backs down or not. If they do not back down then they will simply die, as in Russia can't continue to exist under this pressure and either there will be a change in leadership with optional violence or the country itself will fracture and stop being "Russia". Simply put, they will lose however you put it and they dont have the choice to disagree.

Honestly, your understanding over the situation is surface level at best. You are missing pretty much everything of importance for how this war will turn out.

[monorprise]

@Soteris Russia will launch its nukes to defend its own territory which will be at threat if Ukraine gains the ability to seriously threaten it as they would with western troops.

As for Russia being in a tough spot, its true our economic sanction and sending the dollar to war has forced Russia into the hands of China. Russia is more and more becoming a Chinese client state.

This is a believe it or not a worse case scenario for America. For while Russia is not a serious threat to America or its allies, China is the most serous threat America has ever faced.

Until now our only realistic defense strategy against china has been a naval blockade to starve them of resources while keeping Russia nominally on our side in giving them an alternative.

With Russia now a client state of China and china building enormous new pipelines and infistuture to get their energy and resources from Siberia that defense strategy is no longer poss able.

That means in no uncertain terms we have no way to win a war against China, should the Chinese become a threat to the region.

[Soteris]

I call bullshit on the threat of nukes. Russia has been threatening nukes since the first day of their invasion but they have never done it. Furthermore, they shot themselves in the foot when they organized a vote in the occupied regions to "formally" annex them, meaning that Crimea is no different from Kherson or zaporizhzhia, Luhansk or Donetsk. None of which Russia controls fully and all of which Ukraine is currently fighting inside of.

If Russia is making the excuse that ALL of those states are "Russian territory" and that they are going to use nukes against anyone who infringes onto that territory then they would have done so already. We know its not Russian territory and Russia KNOWS that WE KNOW that it is not Russian territory. We called their bluff and they fucking folded.

And yes, this does force Russia into the hands of China but that does not make China much of a bigger threat. They are going to abuse and exploit Russia, not make them into a powerful ally. The increase in Chinas own power will be negligible if they will even survive the next 15 years in the first place. If you had not noticed, China is in a really shitty situation right now and might collapse.

If China becomes hostile then we dont need Russia, we need India and India is set to utterly dominate China going into the future.

[monorprise]

@Soteris Russia can be expected to use nukes when they feel they have no better option not before.

Russia will have no better option if Ukraine and its alies gain the ability to threaten Russia itself. Russia legally retains the right to use nukes to defend the territory they have annexed but are very unlikely to ever do so again unless the regime itself is threaten.

The Ukraine by itself simply doesn't poise that kind of threat, NATO does, as such anything that brings NATO closer to war with Russia also brings us closer to nuclear exchange for the simple reason that Russia has little other choice.

[Soteris]

No. There is a cost to using nukes so it is not that they have to be driven from all other options until they choose nukes but rather that they have to stand to lose enough that losing everything is a preferable option.

Also at no point in this war has NATO gotten closer to a war with Russia. If anything, it has pretty much removed that possibility entirely since Russia is completely harmless now.

[Anonymous]

It depends what you define as "winning". Russia can lose a million more men before feeling it and would do that without blinking. But the chess pieces get moved everyday. a lot of things are still fluid and the war can still escalate. I don't think Russia takes Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't make the cost to Ukraine unforgivablly high. And in that sense Putn can withdraw from Ukraine and claim victory by defending Russia from Ukrainian aggression. Of course that's assuming he's able to maintain power.

[Anonymous]

Not sure but the Ukraine president comes across as someone who is more interested in being a celebrity than anything else. What president leaves their own country to travel the world during a war.

[JohnK123]

Lmao Truman. Stalin. In WWII

[JohnK123]

The Afghanistan pres when the Taliban cane

[katiesmuff]

My guess is a settlement with no military solution!

[Soteris]

Russia has already lost. The question is simply if Ukraine can win and how long that would take. Personally I am of the belief that Ukraine will continue this war until they achieve if not all their goals then the vast majority. That means I expect them to fight for literal years into the future if that is what it takes.

Russia on the other hand was betting on a quick victory, something that they were unable to achieve and at this point I do not think they have the manpower or the equipment to go on the offensive anymore not to mention everything they have lost so far makes even a "complete victory" not worth the costs they had to pay for it. There is an open question if Putin will survive the war and even if Russia will fracture and split into a civil war or several different nations.

[monorprise]

@Soteris
Russia has more than 100 million more people than the Ukraine, they already control the parts of Ukraine they are really interested, and have the means to defend that territory.

[Soteris]

@monorprise It matters not how much more people Russia has if they can't mobilize them. This is both an equipment question, since Russia is running out of that but also a social question AKA how far will the Russian people allow Putin to go in this war. Specifically the fact that they are not going to accept personal disruptions in their own lives, such as a worse economy or being drafted into the military, for Putin to continue this war.

This is in contrast to Ukraine which has had a very strong reaction against Russia because of this war and appear much more willing to fight back. In other words, there is a very good chance that Ukraine is actually able to field more troops than Russia simply because the Russians dont want to fight.

As for the occupied regions, No. Russia is not in control of "what they are really interested in". Sure, the land bridge to Crimea is important and Crimea itself is super important but those are just useful for the military. The land itself has pretty much no economic benefit to Russia as its mostly just farm fields and its not like Russia has a lack of space in their country.

If we go with the heartland theory as well as Russias ancient need for defensible terrain to protect their country from invasion then it is literally all or nothing. A partial victory does not give them anything of value, especially in comparison to what they have lost.

And finally, "Have the means to defend that territory". I disagree. Russia has already shown that they are unable to maintain their forces at combat readiness and that they are running critically low on certain equipment categories. They are also lacking in reserves which became evident when Wagner could just prance about inside Russia and the biggest set of obstacles they found was a few helicopters and two excavators digging up the road in front of them. This is all they have, and Ukraine is just getting stronger.

[monorprise]

@Soteris
Russia doesn't need anything beyond Criminal, and the land bridge to Criminia exist for no other reason than to help protect Crimea's access to water.

If the Ukraine had not cut off such access Russia is unlikely to have enraged in such a military exersize. Russia is not only holding this territory they annexed it which means under Russian law the Russian Goverment which Putin firmly controls regardless of the opinion of the Russian people can draft anyone they want and even use unclear weapons to defend it.

Its true Russia had large economic and logistical problems resulting from decades of corruption, but they are still more than 3 times the size of Ukraine and have that ultimate trump card.

Russia has what they really want, it doesn't sound like they are really interested in anything more.

[Soteris]

@monorprise No I am afraid you dont get it. The land bridge to Crimea is critical for Russia because they can't supply Crimea by their bridge or boats. If Ukraine cuts the land bridge then Russia will have to give up on Crimea. Also the land bridge was intended to cut Ukraine away from their port access because that is how they export their products to the world markets. Without port access they are economically ruined. Problem for Russia is that Ukraine still has Odessa.

Russia also "legally" annexed all the other states they invaded even if they only controlled a fraction of the actual population. In other words, Ukraine already "occupies" "legal Russian land" so the escalation argument over invading Crimea is bullshit.

The fact remains, Ukraine has a much bigger army than Russia does in this war right now and Russia has shown that it can't keep up with the rate that Ukraine is growing stronger with their new recruits and new equipment. It is over. The period of this war where Russia had the advantage has past and opened up for Ukraine to do whatever it wants.

It is not that Russia dont want anything more, its that they can't even keep what they already have.

[GreenLanternI0I]

As American I can confidently say 1000% Russia! and Good for Them. Russia is RUSSIA and people here in U. S. are keep forgetting that, because they are watching way too much CNN, FOX and CNBC and believing people who never even served in a military or understand how warfare actually works.

[Lliam]

Ukraine will have no option other than to surrender or agree to a diplomatic solution as it should have done 8 years ago.

It's too bad that the U. S. and its NATO pawns decided to sacrifice the Ukrainian people in an effort to weaken Russia. But they failed. Russia is stronger than ever.

[Avicenna]

Russia will probably win. They have more resources and can afford to wear the Ukrainians down, something they are in the process of doing. Zelensky made a huge mistake in saying he wanted to retake Crimea, which isn't going to happen, but set a huge bar Ukraine can't reach.

[ibodi]

Both of them are uncomfortable especially British say that to Zelenskyi and it is not a fair war no matter what NATO reflect westen is fxxktard.

[JohnK123]

Russia already lost lol they couldn’t defeat ukraine in a whole year and almost half

[Anonymous]

It’ll go like Iraq and Afghanistan - they’ll just pull their forces out and let whoever wants it to have it.