How long will Ukraine war last?

[Bratsondanielle]

I heard someone say that the Ukraine war could potentially last until January 20th 2025 when the president comes back to the white house and reestablishes the peace we enjoyed from 2017 - 2021 when Russia, Korea and China all stayed completely calm and our borders were secure

Do you think that is a fair estimate? I mean that's a whole year plus change

[Soteris]

Doing some napkin math I guess Russia could theoretically drag this out for another 3 years however that will not change the fact that they have lost, only the cost they have to pay in lost men, material and their loss of standing in the world.

While the smart thing would be to just give up as soon as possible it does not look like Russia is prepared for that just yet. There is speculations that the most recent desperate attacks from Russia is intended to secure a better position from which they can start peace negotiations but that is highly speculative.

So yeah, I give this war a range of between this next summer to 3 years from now as the latest at which point Russia simply can't fight anymore even if they would have wanted to.

Also there is nothing that USA can really do to change this besides just giving more fancy toys to Ukraine. To put it simply, for you to establish peace through threat of violence or otherwise you actually need to have a response prepared. Nukes are a good example but it also demonstrates the problem very well. Just because you have a response such as nukes, it does not mean that it will be useful.

Russia has nukes and has also regularly threatened to use them in Ukraine but no one takes them seriously and so the threat of their usage does not actually exist. The reason for this is that nukes are a response to critical national threats, other nukes for example. Ukraine has not actually made a real attempt to invade Russia itself which they could have done at this point and to devastating effect.

As such the Russian nuke threats can be ignored and there is nothing Russia can really do about it. For you to have an effective deterrent you need to have a variety of responses prepared for each level of escalation you might find yourself in. For example, after 9/11 happened the USA did not respond with nukes, they responded with an invasion and whenever China or whoever gets uppity USA responds with trade sanctions and such things.

So, its not only Russia that has this gap in their prepared responses, USA too suffers from this against certain countries.. like against Russia. The normal go-to response of trade sanctions and such is not enough to discourage Russia which has prepared itself from its effects and you can't really invade them either because of their nukes. That means you dont actually have a serious enough response that would make Russia back off and you are limited to weaker responses like giving Ukraine equipment which while it won't stop the war will at least reduce its length and make Russia surrender quicker.

This is why USA can't actually enforce peace here no matter who is the president. The "best" you can do is escalate this into a nuclear conflict between Russia and USA which is not helping the situation.

[Soteris]

@petera1987 Since Lliam blocked me ill just respond here. You mean the 1990 "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" which said that West Germany could join NATO but not East Germany? Considering neither of those countries exist anymore I dont think that is particularly relevant today and to my knowledge there is no other restrictions on NATO expansion in that treaty.

Also, how does this in any way mean you can trust negotiations with Russia?

[petera1987]

No, you're misrepresenting the treaty. The deal was that AFTER reunification of the two Germanies, NATO would not expand beyond the Oder river that separates the nations of Germany and Poland; that is, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Balkan countries, never mind the Baltic States (which belonged to the USSR) would never join NATO.
"West" Germany already belonged to NATO long before 1990.

[Soteris]

@petera1987 No that was never in the treaty. In fact, they explicitly put this as article 6:
ARTICLE 6
The right of the united Germany to belong to alliances, with all
the rights and responsibilities arising therefrom, shall not be
affected by the present Treaty.

[petera1987]

This isn't about Article Six. It's about the promise that was made to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand East beyond Germany.

[Soteris]

@petera1987 There is no evidence that promise was made and either way that was just a verbal promise without any legal weight to it.

[Lliam]

Either that or the psychopaths in charge of U. S. foreign policy will use Ukraine to fight Russia down to the last capable Ukrainian.

On thing for sure is, Russia ain't gonna lose. And it is going to demand total capitulation. It tried for eight years to negotiate in good faith but was played for a fool by the U. S. and its puppet regime in Ukraine.

To Russia's credit, it engaged in a limited response to the aggression it, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine faced from the Ukrainian government and NATO. It would have saved money and the lives of Russian soldiers if it had pulled a massively destructive "shock and awe" campaign like the U. S. did in Iraq.

And, whatever Russia has to do to secure peace will be NOTHING compared to the deliberate slaughter of civilians by Izrahell because Russia isn't a sadistic butcher. It tries to minimize civilian casualties at its own expense.

[Soteris]

Ukraine is going to fight Russia down to the last capable Ukrainian. They are a prideful nation and Slavic mentality does not accept invasions easily, they do not need your help to sacrifice themselves for their own country.

Also Russia never negotiates in good faith. Whoever trusts a Russian diplomat is retarded considering the history of them going back against their own words whenever it is convenient. For example, Russia was supposed to be a security guarantor of Ukraine but ended up being the invader.

Also it was not Russias mercy that saved Ukraine from a "shock and awe" campaign like USA did in Iraq. Russia literally attempted to copy that in the early days of the war, they just failed spectacularly.

It is also hilarious that you claim Russia isn't a sadistic butcher when unnecessary cruelty and civilian terror campaigns is literally part of their military doctrine. Russia regularly "makes examples" of people and places to try enforce their authority.

I dont know if you are just a Russian troll or if you actually believe this nonsense but its equally sad either way.

[Lliam]

@Soteris. You are just spectacularly ignorant of history and facts. You must get all your information from the media. It would be impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

[Soteris]

Oh really? Then why dont you explain to me why a security guarantor is invading the country they swore to protect and why we should trust someone who does that? Also, why Russia has failed to achieve victory after all this time and looks to be losing decisively?

[Lliam]

@Soteris. I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. It would be like trying to discuss geology or evolution with a Creationist. Totally pointless.
Go troll somewhere else.

[Soteris]

Of course you are not. Its hard to make up good lies after all.

[Lliam]

@Soteris. You're pathetic.

[petera1987]

@Soteris "Also Russia never negotiates in good faith."
So they're just like the United States then in that regard. Whatever happened to the promise made by Secretary Baker back in the early 1990's that NATO would never expand further east towards Russia's border?

[Cuminginside]

@petera1987 that was back then this is now.

[petera1987]

No, it won't end then, and certainly not because your "president" will make some kind of miraculous return, like the Messiah. It will end when Russia has secured its objectives, whatever those objectives may be, but unlike many if not most of the self-proclaimed experts online, I don't believe that their main objective ever was the complete conquest of the whole of Ukraine. At the moment it's a stalemate, but that will end when the fickle people of the west and their awful governments get tired of funding Zelensky, which is actually already happening.

[strateguy632]

this is not just a hope, when trump was president the REALITY was no ukraine war.

[petera1987]

@strateguy632 And the reality was there wasn't the current Israeli-Hamas war either. Do you honestly believe that your precious president could have realistically done anything at all to prevent the war in the Ukraine? If so, you're hopelessly naive.

[integrale77]

@strateguy632 your precious Trump would not have been able to stop the war in the Ukraine happening even if he had stayed in power. Trump let alone any other president or prime minister have not got any control over the leader of any other country to the level you think.
Putin decided to do what he wanted because he wanted to.

[integrale77]

So basically you think Trump would have an influence over Putin's attempt to take over the Ukraine. No that's silly.

The war will last untill Putin either takes over and starts trying to recreate the USSR, or he gives up or he gets bumped off/disappears.

[Drewtate]

The Ukraine war will last as long as the US supplies weapons to Ukraine. The US is currently at war with Russia and will fight to the last Ukrainian. Overall this is the cheapest war the us has ever fought and gains to the national intrest if successful are huge.

[AviatorTom]

I'd give it maybe one more year, December 2024. I'm not sure whoever the US President is in 2025 will cause it to end. Rather, the Russian people and their dis-satisfaction, along with Putin's health, should be the turning point.

[allaboutyou2]

A lot of politicians and their families make a lot of money when a war is in progress, so if the wrong administration is in the Whitehouse then it could go on for years.

[Soteris]

I never really understood people like you who think the world revolves around USA and its president. This is not an American war, you dont get to say when its over.

[allaboutyou2]

Without American aide Ukraine could not maintain the offensive so yes America does really decide when the war is over.

[Soteris]

Even if that is true (its not), what would a stop to the Ukrainian offensive actually mean? Russia can't break Ukraine and if Ukraine can't break Russia then that is just an infinite stalemate.

[allaboutyou2]

Which makes a long drawn out war which makes a lot of military contractors rich. If Ukraine thought they could maintain the offensive without USA aide their president would not have come to the USA to beg for billions of aide.

[Soteris]

But again, that makes no sense. Assisting Ukraine just makes them win faster. If USA did not assist Ukraine then this war would be dragging on even longer and allow military contractors to profit even more. Also countries at war will always look for more advantages even if they are already winning.

For example, USA triggered article 5 of NATO which drags all the NATO members into the war against Afghanistan. USA did not do this because they actually needed the help to win the war but nations will always lean towards overkill when it comes to war.

Fact remains however, this war would continue with or without USAs involvement.

[888theGreat]

@Soteris Ukraine has been destroyed. Most men of fighting age have been killed

[Soteris]

@888theGreat No they are not. There are like 44 million people in Ukraine, half of them are obviously men in various ages. During WW2 a total of around 13 million soldiers were drafted into the German army (not at the same time obviously). Ukraine today does not have an army that could number in the same ballpark as the TOTAL army that Germany raised. That is retarded. Stop being stupid.

The current Ukrainian military force is probably around a million if you count the militias as well and they have probably lost maybe 100k to 200k

You really do live in a fantasy land dont you?

[DJB72]

Ask Joe and Justin. Their funding it is what's keeping talks off the table

[Surely]

I really hope that this country can hold out until the next election. Then with all of the unrest in the world and even the home front. It will take Superman to correct it in only four years!

[888theGreat]

1) Russia has won

2) Longer it lasts , the better off Putin is

3) Trump will end funding and weapons when he is reelected and Russia will get 30% of Ukraine.

So until 2025

[FunkyMonkee]

As long as Joe keeps giving them all our tax money..

[exitseven]

It will end the day after President Trump is inaugurated.

[Soteris]

Ha! How?

[exitseven]

@Soteris Either Trump brokers a deal between Putin and Ukraine or else he cuts the funding and Zalinsk surrenders the next day.

[Soteris]

A deal over what? And you really think Ukraine would surrender if USA dropped funding?

How Naive.

[exitseven]

@Soteris Trump would broker a deal with Putin that he could live with and save face. If the US shut off the cash spigot to Ukraine Zalinsky would surrender The next day and retire to one of the many mansions he bought with the money ha skimmed off the top.

[Soteris]

So you believe basically in magic because there are no such deal that Putin and Ukraine would agree upon. Their positions are entirely irreconcilable which is the reason for this war in the first place. Saying that Trump would "broker a deal" is basically the same as saying he will pull a solution from his ass and it would be a shining miracle rather than a turd.

[888theGreat]

Yep, I had same answer

[888theGreat]

@Soteris No you liberal ass kissers can't except the truth

[Soteris]

@888theGreat That Trump could magically make Putin and Ukraine agree on a deal? In what universe?

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

For as long as they can get money from us to give to the Bidens

[JohnK123]

Bc America isn’t sending everything they could

[dreamstar72]

Until the USA stops funding money to them.

[Soteris]

No. Russia does not have enough forces to occupy Ukraine, even if you magically removed every current Ukrainian soldier. Russia simply can't perform a proper occupation much less win the war. Ukraine has already won, and did it just weeks into the conflict, we are just fighting over the details of this victory.

Without US assistance in this war Ukraine would lose some of its edge but that would just make them less able to close out the conflict. In other words it would extend the war further. Reality would literally be the exact opposite of what you just suggested.

[jahaims]

Until we stop giving support

[noohair]

When we stop sending weapons and money.

[Nemesis2k7]

Why bring that up

[Worst]

Until it ends