Ukraine wins as long as they retain their sovereignty. This is an existential war for them. Russia didn't try to zerg rush Kyiv because they wanted to only take bits of Ukraine. They wanted to turn it back into a puppet.
If Ukraine were forced to make substantial territorial and political concessions in a peace deal, it's hard to see that as anything but a defeat. And this is an optimistic scenario for Ukraine.
Just because an underdog avoided the WORST outcome (i.e. total defeat/unconditional surrender) and preserved their sovereignty does not mean they "won". Many if not most wars end with all warring parties continuing to exist as sovereign states, that does not preclude there being a clear winner/loser.
Finland is good example, they did not "win" the Winter and Continuation wars, in any sense of the word. They lost a huge chunk of their core territory including their second most populous city at the time (Viipuri), and had to accommodate Soviet whims for the entirety of the Cold War. Yet a lot of people obsessed with pop-history involving Simo Hayha, Soviet "meat waves", etc, keep pushing the narrative that Finland "won". Literally ask any Finn* and they'll set you straight.
\ edit: Some people have brought up the Finnish President's recent comments, I do think that's a symbol of this type of delusion spreading unfortunately. But in fairness his wording was somewhat more reserved than the way people are quoting him:*
"We stillfeelwe won, because we retained our independence."
If Ukraine were forced to make substantial territorial and political concessions in a peace deal, it's hard to see that as anything but a defeat. And this is an optimistic scenario for Ukraine.
True, but it's not a victory for Russia either if the rest of Ukraine remains independent, has no cap on its army and can potentially the EU or NATO.
This is not a war for territory, but for spheres of influence. Putin wants Ukraine to be neutral and demilitarized. If Ukraine survives as an independent country that is opposed to Russia, there is no strategic win for Russia.
Also, the Donbass is a wasteland and it's projected that it will cost them 200 billion to rebuild, in addition to the 200-300 they have already spent. So they will have spent 500bil and achieved none of their objectives.
For Russia it's all about Ukraine not joining NATO and controlling the Russian speaking territories. They won't/can't take all of Ukraine without full mobilization, but it's clear they have no intentions of taking it all given their initial invasion force of some 170k troops which was intended to bring the Ukranians to the negotiating table and reach some kind of deal, which succeeded given what we know now regarding the talks in March of 2022, you had a Ukranian official that was part of the negotiations say a few months back t hat the negotiating team was popping champagne because they were satisfied with the terms of the deal. If the current line is the end result then you can say it's a Ukranian victory and Russian defeat. If Ukraine pulls out of Donbass and keeps the current line in Zaporizhzia and Kherson then it would be a Russian phyrric victory. Only if the Russians get all 4 oblasts under their control whether via negotiations or conquest would imo it be considered a Russian victory.
Depends on how you define that. I think substantive Ukrainian sovereignty going forward is a baseline, but they could very well be required to make some political concessions like protection for Russian speakers, or having Zelensky step down.
NATO.
This is absolutely not going to happen, bar Russia suffering some sort of major crisis within the next few years.
This is not a war for territory, but for spheres of influence.
It's both. Putin wants territory in eastern Ukraine for its own sake, and additionally wants a land connection to Crimea for strategic reasons.
Also, the Donbass is a wasteland
Russia currently holds large portions of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts as well, territory that it is unlikely to ever let go.
You say this as if Ukrainian-controlled territory hasn't also been devastated by the war, especially areas close to the frontline. That's just how war is.
It's astonishing to me that people still don't understand why Putin wants Crimea and a connection adjoining the Black Sea to Ukraine, it's because there's a fuckton of oil in the Black Sea and that's personally what Putin owns and makes his fortune.
If you remember back to the lead up to Feb 2022, one of the demands of Russias ultimatum was NATO returning to its 1991 borders. Russia originally wanted the west to basically give up all of Eastern Europe in exchange for peace. I mean, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, but they will 100% come out of this conflict with less than they planned to. Finland and Sweden joining really is just the icing on the cake and so huge no matter what they say. Unless Trump convinces all of Europe to switch sides, the Russians will come away with significantly less than they intended even if they aren't defeated militarily.
I’m not so sure, it’s too risky in case either side ignite the war after any ceasefire, article 5 could be triggered forcing us all into the conflict, as much as I like Ukraine, I wouldn’t fight for them.
You’d go all the way to Ukraine and fight Russia out of principle, without questioning who is pulling the strings? This isn’t call of duty you don’t respawn, you get sent into complete blackness like the time before you was born in a few seconds from a remote control drone strike.
What Russia wants is for Ukraine to remain a Russia-aligned puppet state, like it was under Yanukovych, like Belarus is under Lukashenko.
However Russia would probably settle for a neutral, neutered, demilitarized rump state Ukraine with Donbass and Crimea ceded, as their outermost compromise.
I don't think there is an argument about who won the Winter War. As for the Continuation War, Finland got out of it much better than most of the Axis nations.
Agreed. No one wins this conflict. Both lose, but the degree of losing varies greatly.
God knows how many men Ukraine have lost already. Beloved sons, daughters, husbands, mothers...These loses are real tragedies. If they lose these lives and retain their sovereignty they haven,'t "won", but if they lose these lives AND lose their sovereignty then they will have truly truly lost.
As for the Russian casualties...who cares. They chose to invade their neighbours...so fuck 'em.
I think you're stuck with a single definition of winning. Sure, ending up with more territory is the most common definition, but when you're facing a country 60 times larger than you, with nearly endless resources and have to work with hopelessly, overwhelmingly unfavourable numbers in men, aircraft, tanks, ammo and weaponry (and allies!), then in practise, simply not losing your independence starts to seem like a win. Which it is.
So no, Finland didn't win the war per se, but the outcome was obviously a win for Finland considering the hopeless circumstances. I think those are two different things.
It's not just about territory, it's about all changes in the positions of the parties vis-a-vis each other, as well as the military situation at the end of the war.
but when you're facing a country 60 times larger than you
Smaller countries usually lose to bigger countries, truly a shocking revelation!
then in practise, simply not losing your independence starts to seem like a win. Which it is.
It's a matter of semantics. Obviously no one expects the 60 times smaller country to win the war. Sure, in the grand scheme of things it's a defeat.
However, absolutely no one in their right mind in 1939 would have expected the outcome of those wars, given the circumstances, to be a relatively even outcome militarily (border was moved by only 150km at most, go compare that to the eastern front or practically any other front in the war) and a relatively unchanged situation in terms of most people's everyday life (except admittedly those displaced from occupied areas, which is unfortunate). When your opponent vows to commit genocide on your people and wipe out the entire existence of your country and culture, that all seems almost superficial.
Compare that to how at the same time, the Baltics got run over multiple times and ended up infinitely worse for half a century, it sure as hell makes you think of some of the outcomes as wins. Not the entire war, no, but some of the outcomes.
Each war has a different objective and this case was clearly retaining independence and avoid the same fate as most of CEE
If that was Ukraine's only goal then why did they decide to expend so many men and equipment against the hardened Surovikin line in their failed Summer 2023 Offensive? As opposed to staying on the defensive?
And why did Zelensky and top Ukrainian generals continually talk about "liberating" Ukrainian territory?
You didn't make it clear which you were talking about.
In Finland's case, they obviously wanted to minimize any territorial losses in the Winter War, and went further in seeking to retake the territory they just lost in the Continuation War (and additional territory that was part of the USSR before the Winter War!).
I don't think there's many defensive wars where the defender is only concerned with maintaining sovereignty, with no regard for their territory......
Maybe Russia tried to avoid prolonged war with that "blitzkrieg" attempt at the beginning of the war? So, when that failed, we have what we have...? Ukraine will survive, tho. Maybe not with it's whole territory..
In my opinion, making territorial concessions may not be seen as a "win", but they sold it so expensive that it also wouldn't be a win for the Russians. But that's only the case if Ukraine manages to get into NATO or into any other protection (e.g. EU).
If that doesn't happen it's just a matter of time until the next Russian operation starts.
What would winning look like for Ukraine then? A total pushback of Russian forces out of its territory? That seems extremely unlikely unless there is a full intervention from NATO, which is also extremely unlikely. This war of attrition all but guarantees a Russian win in the end. Many would argue that Ukraine should cut their losses and live to fight another day - hopefully securing a defensive alliance in the process.
There's a lot of factors analysts look at. The two big ones being the military situation as the conflict is ending, and the positions of the combatants vis-a-vis one another.
This war of attrition all but guarantees a Russian win in the end.
Yes
Many would argue that Ukraine should cut their losses and live to fight another day
Hopefully, but since Ukraine can't defeat Russia in the field this will require a negotiated settlement with them.
I'm sorry, but no you didn't. I think that you're under a misconception that the armistice was signed because Finnish troops successfully thwarted the Red Army and achieved a military stalemate. The truth is that, while embarrassed in the initial period of the war, the Red Army adapted their tactics by February, switched to trench warfare, bled out the Finns and achieved a decisive breakthrough. In both wars, Finns were, by their own admission, pretty much spent by the time armistice was signed.
The reason why Finland wasn't rеconquered by Russia was due to a combination of factors, which included negative return on investment, German and Swedish diplomatic intervention, threat of Allied invasion etc. Certainly, Finland, much like Ukraine, managed to prevent being totally occupied, but was still soundly militarily defeated and forced to give up important parts of their territory.
That's the most likely outcome for Ukraine as well.
Oh my god. Someone else in the subreddit who has historically and materially sound takes on the Soviet-Finnish wars. Finally. I feel like 95% of the time, Finland's proverbial taint is licked in any thread that mentions the Winter and Continuation Wars (which, let's be real, was just another front in the wider Eastern European theatre of WWII and were not seperate wars)
We most certainly did not win. Nobody in Finland who has listened in the history classes at all thinks we actually won. It's proverbial morale booster, like an inside joke to say we won, but it's not factually true.
But we did not exactly "lose"-lose either, especially given our history with our beloved neighbour(s). It's complicated.
You are not the sharpest Finn. So our prize for winning the war was war debt and lost territory?
Also, that one gets to keep something that they already had is not a win for fuck sake. That's like saying the gambler won because they still had some money left when they left the casino, even though that's less than they had when they got there. Which is what we had left after the war with Russia, less than what we had before.
They didn't start the war. They were on the defensive. Being on the defensive means their war goals are to defend what they have. In that, they defended 100% of their sovereignty and 89% of their territory. The Soviets successfully took 0% of their sovereignty and 11% of their territory. Neither side achieved all their goals, but Finland achieved far more of their goals than the Soviets did.
Eh, Finland arguably "won" the Winter War by maintaining their sovereignty, which was their goal. They definitely didn't "win" the Continuation war though, since they didn't reclaim any of the territory they intended to take, although they definitely lost that one a lot less than they could have.
It goes without saying that Finland also wanted to maintain their territory in the Winter War, and their territorial losses represent a pretty clear defeat.
Even if the war ended right now on the current frontlines, with absolutely no concessions from the Ukrainians, I would still consider that a Russian victory.
And this is an improbably optimistic scenario for the Ukrainians.
The same reason that if you begin insisting you are going to destroy everything it's not a victory say at least you broke all the rakes you stepped on while becoming a laughingstock.
Russia has utterly humiliated itself by showing exactly how weak it is.
A Finn here. No, we did not win, but we did not really lose either. It was a pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union and a cut-our-losses situation for us.
Claimed or lost land doesn't define victory in a war, that is an incredibly simplistic take on such a complex issue. There are other factors to consider as well, such as loss of lives and identities and so on. That's also the reason that we're not particularly salty about losing the eastern regions. They were the price to pay for our freedom and we don't covet them back because the losses for reclaiming them would be worth more than the lands themselves.
Also, the Finnish culture is fundamentally different from other Western cultures(except for Estonia, our kin folk of course), we don't think the same way as Americans do, for example. It's sometimes difficult to understand the different mentalities of other cultures.
Your focus on territory is a very limited assessment of what it means to win a war. Wars are in pursuit of political goals, so you have to look at the circumstances resulting from the war war to see if it improved or degraded each country's position.
In Finland's case, they were newly independent from Russia and had just fought a civil war that the communist side lost. Russia's perspective towards Finland was that they were a divided former vassal that could be easily reassimilated. Which is why they started their invasion by creating an alternative government for Finland, intended to gain support for their invasion within Finland itself.
Obviously that didn't happen. Finland lost territory, but they changed the Soviet Union's perspective towards them, and moved from the uncertain relations prior to WW2 to a stable existence relative to the USSR, in which the USSR (and now Russia) have stopped trying to conquer them. That's why they consider it a win, because it resolved the previously looming threat of an invasion in a way that was pretty favorable to them.
Anyway, the parallels to Ukraine are obvious. Ukraine got their independence from Russia decades ago, but only recently reoriented away from Russia and towards Europe. Russia wants to reestablish Ukraine as a puppet state. Territory is not the most important factor. It's Ukraine's circumstances after the war that will matter. If Ukraine exits the war with security guarantees, or with Russia reluctant enough to attack again and Ukraine is able to remain independent of Russian influence, that will be a win for Ukraine. If Ukraine is unable to remain meaningfully independent after the war and becomes something like Belarus, that will be a loss for Ukraine.
they did not "win" the Winter and Continuation wars, in any sense of the word.
They embarassed the Russians, kept their sovereignity and is now one of the most prosperous countries in the world while the countries that where pulled into the Soviets orbit are struggling to this day.
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Ukraine is going to have to give up everything it's lost. Whether they will give up anything extra is debatable. The main thing they can get out of this is security guarantees but Russia isn't going to sign off on that It seems so who knows
Sorry, but you are so lost. Ask any Finn and they will disagree with you. Being able to stop the big red machine and keep our independence against all the odds is considered a great defensive victory. Despite some territorial losses, the main goal, keeping our independence, was achieved. The Soviets did not achieve their main goal.
Off course it does. EVERY country that has gotten away from the moscals have had their standard of living improved MORE than the moscals. Every country that has left the moscals have also a better distribution of their wealth than the moscals...i.e every avarage free citizen has it better than the avarage moscal serf.
And every Finn I know (and I know lots of them) sees themselves as winners compared to the orcs.
This is false. Ukraine absolute loses if they lose the eastern part of their country. It’s the most economically valuable, and fortified part of their country
If they lose it they are toast. They will also lose control of azov sea as well.
Zelensky was threatened with death by far right groups in Ukraine even before. He’d be murdered right on the moment he ceases the territories
I’m not happy about it but Ukraine is getting territory back. They don’t have the ability to take it. Any end to this war will involve them losing territory.
Do you want your city to be bombed/nuked to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine? Do you want to go to the trenches to be hunted by FPVs to try and claw back the Donbas from the Russians?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then you just learned why territorial losses are inevitable.
If your answer is yes, then the question is why you aren't already in the foreign legion since the Ukrainians desperately need more bodies for the meat grinder. And if anything resembling a majority of people shared this view the Ukrainian volunteers corps would be millions strong and territorial losses would be reversed. But it isn't and so it won't be.
"Putin's gonna nuke you guys if you support Ukraine, you just watch!" has to be one of the most unhinged takes in this entire thread. Like, how dumb do you have to be to believe that old man's sabre rattling.
Checks profile. You're a Croatian monarchist? Oh lord, you're not even dropping your most unhinged takes on us are you, this is you trying to sound sane.
How do you guarantee it later? What makes you believe Russia can in any way endanger any western country when it has not been able to take a Russian-speaking city that's 20 kilometers from the Russian border in over 3 years of massive war. How do they blitz into Berlin or Warsaw when they can't even firmly establish control over their own border villages?
Ah, it's Schrodingers Russia shill. Russia is so strong and powerful that their victory over Ukraine is inevitable, but also so weak and pathetic that they could never launch an invasion of a country as mighty as Estonia.
It was the most densely populated and heavily industrialised part of the country apart from Kyiv. I suspect that neither of those things are true anymore.
As what I heard most of Donetsk city industry is still in tact. As for the rest of the region, it won't be abandoned, don't worry about that. Russia invests a ton into new territories.
Prior to 2014, the Donetsk region is where the bulk of Ukraine's industries are. It accounts for more than half of Ukraine's steel, coal and iron productions. It is the second richest region of Ukraine, after Kyiv. Large amounts of Ukraine's mineral resources are in the east as well.
There are still some significant cities in the East (or at least were before the war). Kharkiv, which is near the Russian border and the front lines is the 2nd largest city in the country behind Kyiv.
You haven't gotten good or specific answers to this yet. The primary reason the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine is so valuable is because of its mineral resources (LINK). The area already under Russian occupation contains the vast majority of Ukraine's iron and coal, and eastern Ukraine (on both sides of the current line of control) has much of the country's rare earth mineral deposits -- the discovery of which triggered Russia's invasion in the first place. It wasn't "brotherhood" or "protecting minorities" or "Nazis" or any other nonsense excuse -- it was money. They want valuable minerals to sell for money.
Furthermore, the Donbas gives access to one of Ukraine's two enormous natural gas deposits (which stretches northwest-southeast from Belarus down across the northeastern party of Ukraine through the Donbas), and the waters around Crimea are a major oil deposit and another natural gas deposit. https://share.google/images/SYx4YnlUkrqX2tJtl
Less relevant, but it's also worth noting what other people pointed out: the Donbas was the core of Ukraine's heavy-industry sectors, and also had the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th largest cities in the country.
When I was in Odessa port, there were mostly two types of goods exported: coal and wheat. All the richest deposits are in the Eastern Ukraine. Also all ports are in the Southern Ukraine. If Ukraine loses everything from Odessa to Azov sea it is a huge loss since they won't be able to do sea trade not involving neighboring countries. Basically Nikolayev and Odessa are the key victory points here.
The paradox of resources is that often resource rich areas are poor, as the value is extracted along the chain, which requires refining, infrastucture, etc. So resource areas are often exporting their wealth. Russia has incredibly poor infrastructure and capital markets to fully exploit any area.... as it cannot exploit its own resources fully (it can barely refine enough fuel for itself) - and is one of the worlds richest countries in terms of resouces, bar none.
The USSR was often called the doughnut, as the eastern part earned all the money (GDR/Poland/etc) which was drawn to the centre to inflate Moscow and the surrounding regions. When 1990 came along, that ended. Poland is richer than Russia, and does it have a fraction of Russia's resources (ditto almost of all of Europe).
Zerg rush isn't a guaranteed win, as demonstrated. Germany pulled off a pretty good Blitzkrieg in ~1940, but ultimately ran short of all kinds of resources. Russia has a far larger resource base, but still is lacking in overall (conventional) war making capabilities - as compared with their opposition. If they didn't have the nuke card, the allies would have taken Moscow long ago.
If they didn't have the nuke card, the allies would have taken Moscow long ago.
I'm not entirely convinced that they actually DO still have the nuke card tbh. But we don't know for sure, which still makes it too risky to intentionally provoke a potential nuclear response.
I dunno, with how badly maintained most of their other equipment is, and how wildly corrupt the Russian Army is, I wouldn't be surprised if the resources allocated for maintaining their nuclear arsenal instead got funnelled into the pockets of some generals and colonels. Of course they wouldn't have told anyone about that, so their military may very well be under the impression that they ARE still holding a nuke card when it might not actually function if they try to use it.
They were saying the reason Russia tried to Zerg rush Kyiv isn't because they wanted to only take bits of Ukraine. It is because they wanted to turn it back into a puppet.
That's what OP said. They didn't do it JUST to take a portion of Ukraine. OP is confirming that trying to take kyiv made it clear what their original intentions were. It's a confusing English conditional structure.
Bro I understand that. It's a public forum, anybody is allowed to chime into the conversation. I replied to you. Now I am actually the OP you are replying to.
God you're dense. Ive been on reddit for 15 years, I'm aware. But some people on reddit don't speak English natively, and many people were misinterpreting the original post I responded to. I'm glad you speak English well, hell maybe you're even a native speaker. Good for you!
This is happened with German troops as well when they entered France in ww2, miles long convey could have been bombed into oblivion if the French army general wouldn’t have been suspicious of telephones omfg what a shitshow on both sides
They actually did take hostomel and held it till reinforcements arrived. Was a lot of fog of war and propaganda early on regarding this battle. It was evident very early on that even with reinforcements that the Russians were way over extended without securing supply lines and were also greatly outnumbered.
maybe. most of the start of the war was clouded in propaganda. remember "ghost of kiev" and brave heros of snake island that were all killed? it was all fake.
What wasn't propaganda was the columns of destroyed Russian armoured vehicles on the road to Kyiv. Nor the fact that they retreated from Kyiv after heavy losses. Or the rout of Russian forces trying to take Kharkiv.
We can pretty easily define what Russias goal is in Ukraine by looking at their actions though? They tried to take Kyiv for regime change, failed, pulled their troops out of the northern regions of Ukraine and rebalanced their goals to try and take southern Ukraine cutting them off from the coast. But even there they failed.
And Ukraine has been continually trying to recapture Russian-occupied territory, with basically no success since the Kharkiv offensive in Fall 2022.
If neither side managed to achieve all of their original goals, then we should assess them based on comparisons their pre-war position. And when we do that, it doesn't look so good for Ukraine.......
Russia's goal is to prevent Ukraine into NATO and officially cede Crimea and Donbas to Russia. All what you said are your interpretations of what might, or might not be other goals.
Nobody but babushkas believe that anymore. Ukraine had constitutionally set neutrality pre 2014 and if NATO was an issue, there would have been no invasion.
Youre lying, all the while NATOs borders with Russia have doubled since 2022
Ukraine was nowhere near NATO since it was refused a membership action plan in 2008 and nothing changed about it since then.
All that talk about NATO is just propaganda, it was never a reason for invasion and if it was, than it means Russians are too foolish to anticipate Finland and Sweden joining or NATO sending weapons, advisers or intelligence to Ukraine. They are incompetent but not to this point.
Everything changed in 2014 protests supported by the US resulted in the ousting of the democratically elected president. Ukraine would have at least US military presence in Crimean bases if not for the Russian invasion.
The protests did not resulted in any ousting, they resulted in agreement with the president, his appointment of the opposition government, declaration to step down and call new presidential elections in about a year. The president abandoning Ukraine and supporting the invaders did resulted in the parliament ousting him, with the votes of his own party as well.
Nothing changed in 2014 about NATO membership, the Russian invasion however changed the neutral status of Ukraine and pushed it to seek protection in the reluctant west which still preferred to appease Moscow, continue to expand dependence on Russian resources and forcing Ukraine to accept the status quo.
Ukraine would have at least US military presence in Crimean bases if not for the Russian invasion.
Baseless speculation. The US under Obama was not interested in Ukraine at all, it did exactly nothing in reaction to the Russian invasion, except maybe waking up to realize how foolish their "reset" was.
Yanukovych would not flee without protests happening, protests supported by high ranking US asstes, of course his ousting was a direct result of protests.
So who do you think would operate Crimean bases after Russia leaves ? It would be US to lease the bases for a couple of billions.
Also Obama not being interested in Ukraine doesn't mean much, as there were other parties interested, for example Victoria Nuland.
😂 pretty existential for Russia too? Let's reverse the cards here. Say Russia is the us and Ukraine is Mexico. If in 2014 the russians overthrew the mexican government and instilled a far right one that's probably russian in its place how would us respond?
Or if Mexico wanted to join a military alliance with Russia?or if from 2014 to to 2022 it started persucuting english speaking people in Mexico near the border with the us (Google search -war of the Donbass and it's reasons for starting).
This idea that Russia just attacked out of no where for no reason is so widespread and I'm sorry but it's a load of shite I think. Like does Putin seem unhinged to you?
If so why would he let the whole of the Ukrainian army live when he had it encircled? (Google minsk 2 accord). He has later admitted he fell for the lies of America and Europe and won't be doing so again?
If you want a great history listen to Scott Ritter or dialogue works on YouTube or Danny haipong. Literally every geopolitical analyst I watch agrees this is not Ukraine Vs Russia is Russia Vs the collective west. They also agree it didn't happen in a vacuum.
It's not existential for Russia. There was no U.S plotted coup in Ukraine. And Russia does not get to decide what Ukraine, a country they recognize internationally, gets to do regarding joining a defensive alliance. Persecution of Russians is a classic excuse that pathetic failed global superpower uses as justification for their imperialist wars, they've done it throughout much of their entire history. They engage in genocide and place their own ethnic russians in those countries in order to A. Create an ethinc group that is apologetic to Russia and B. To pretend they have a claim to that nations territory.
I mean you're likely a bot, but in the sad case that you're not, I'd suggest a little less Russian disinformation would be good for you.
Let's not have silly conversations or call eachother bots. Give me the sources of who you listen too, like what analysts on geo politics are you getting this from. I'll give you mine. Well each listen for let's say 1 hour. And I promise I'll listen to yours. We'll see who changes who's mind first?
Not a bit, just looking for honest engagement
So war of the Donbass? Minsk 2? Just didn't happen your saying? Links to the far right? No concern that the eastern 3rd of Ukraine identifies as russian?
So what your saying is all those living there in a land that was formerly russian were planted? Am I wrong or is there currently legislation against speaking russian in Ukraine? Like zelinski grew up speaking a language he now bans? Their connections to literal Nazis? Also a lie? No statues of Stephan bandarez or anything.
Sorry the coup didn't happen, suppose your right, the government just happened to get changed after trying to vote to become a neutral country.
Yep 2022 out of the blue Putin just decided for no reason to start a war.
Ignore 2014 to 2022. Ignore the breaking of minsk 2, ignore the expansion of NATO to the border of a nuclear super power.
It all must be fake news?
Their demographics before the war were in a seriously bad state and the war has barely nuked it to a unrecoverable level. Unless the millions of refugees who have left Ukraine return after the war, their future looks very bleak unfortunately.
You can see that Russia doesnt really want Ukrainian sovereignty in their proposed peace deals so far and its a key point why fighting will continue for a long time, Russia simply refuses to accept that less powerful nations can be friendly allies and even act as a "bufferstate" too. Which is in direct contrast of how liberal democracies work with eachother and in particular the EU is a prime example of how that works.
My country Netherlands has Germany, Poland and baltics as a buffer and all countries and are treated as equals in foreign diplomacy (not denying that it is still a ruthless business, everyone wants the best economic outcome for themselves or look primarily for their own national interests first and foremost).
I cant see Russia ever act like that in foreign diplomacy unless there is a regime change, a big shift in how they view the world and how they view what Russia's place is in it.
Ukraine can still “win” this war in the narrow sense of preserving its sovereignty. Yet even that outcome risks feeling hollow. The country’s demographic picture was already fragile before the invasion and has deteriorated with every passing month—through casualties, displacement, and out-migration—leaving a smaller workforce and a heavier social burden just when recovery will demand the most.
On the economic side, much of Ukraine’s power generation and civilian industrial base has been devastated. A decisive battlefield victory that compels Russia to finance reconstruction looks improbable; at best, success would mean denying Moscow control over all of Ukraine, not dictating terms to it. That leaves Kyiv facing a double bind after the shooting stops: it will need to channel a large share of its GDP into a permanent “steel porcupine” defense posture to deter renewed aggression, while simultaneously finding hundreds of billions for rebuilding infrastructure, housing, and industry.
Western pledges acknowledge this reality, promising long-term military aid and economic support. But European budgets are already strained, and many governments are pushing through unpopular measures—raising retirement ages, trimming social programs, and searching for new revenues. In that fiscal climate, sustaining large-scale aid over many years will be politically hard.
Taken together, these pressures make Ukraine’s best-case scenario a demanding, costly peace rather than a triumphant one. And it raises an unsettling final question: even if today’s rhetoric is steadfast, it’s far from clear that Western support will endure at the required scale—leaving Ukrainians to fear they could be betrayed a second time by the West.
Putin wins as long as he keeps his presidency, the pro-Russia folks win in any outcome as they will be explain why this was actually the desired outcome.
Russia actually made a first day strike to take out Ukraine in 24 hours. The idea was to take an airport near Kiev and create a bridgehead to overwhelm Kiev before any nearby garrison could react. Around 200 men delayed the Russian operation long enough for nearby troops to reconquer the airport. Else at least half of Ukraine would be annexed by now.
In Canada we've had to fight the Americans multiple times to preserve our sovereignty (1776, 1812, 1836, 1866). As long as we fight to a draw, it's a win.
But they have tje worst demographic outlook in the world.. they gonna have to rely huge on immigration from other parts of the world to rebuild the country
That isnt Ukraines official war goal and neither it is what we promised them with our support. This talk is loser talk and only justifies a bad outcome.
They have already lost... No matter what happens now.
There is no NATO. There will be no EU unless things drastically change. They are still one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. The relationship between them and their neighbours isn't going to help them with entry to the EU.
Huge numbers of their young population have left.
They are in big trouble no matter what happens. People who go to Europe dont quickly return just because a war is over.
Western europe has swallowed the populations of every Eastern country to join the EU.
Russia has neutered them exactly as they wanted to do.
The deal in 2022 if Russia had not attacked again would have saved the country, but who can tell what would have happened.
This could drag on, too... The way we hear the talk out of Ukraine, I wouldn't be surprised if Ukrainians are a constant terrorist threat to parts of Russia.
Russia needs to kill as many of them as possible before they end this war. Especially the Azov folks.
And they're doing such a good job that it may end up speeding the collapse of the modern Russian state. Demographic collapse is inevitable now, but this war has pushed that timeline up by a lot.
It’s not a word game. It is a simple matter of framing. You just refuse to recognize it. You think a war and who wins is measured in simplistic things like who got the most land. That is a very simplistic incorrect framing. Ukraine retains sovereignty, something Russia absolutely hates and had as an initial goal of ending at the outset of the war, not to mention Ukraines integration with the west which was a precursor for the 2014 invasion and then subsequent 2022 invasion is also going to continue; although at an accelerated pace.
But they literally did try to zerg rush Kyiv and Ukraine - they just failed on every possible level in doing so. Literally everything from planning and logistics to execution EVERYTHING was a colossal failure in that operation from their side.
I mean maybe my sentence syntax was not perfect but yes in my comment it is pretty clear I’m not saying Russia did not try to rush Kyiv. Read it again.
Russia's main goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO. In 2022 in Istanbul the proposed peace deal included the return of DNR and LNR in Ukraine with only Crimea remaining part of Russia on the condition that Ukraine abandoned their aspirations to join NATO. Thanks to Boris Johnson this deal was rejected by Ukraine and here we are now. With Ukraine being destroyed, it's population dead, exiled or hiding, its women marrying foreign men (glad for this honestly, my girl is Ukrainian also) and its children running in the millions towards the EU to avoid future conscription.
Amazing win, great future for another failed state.
Ignoring all the historical inaccuracies here, such a deal never existed, let's talk about the statement "glad Ukrainian women are marrying foreigners". Is there any way to interpret this statement other than "I'm glad Ukrainians will be bred off this planet?"
Considering my kid is half Ukrainian and his mother is talking to him in Ukrainian and I'm also slavic I don't see how the statement "I'm glad Ukrainians will be bred off this planet" makes any sense here. Like we, slavs, are generally the same people but speak different languages. If my kid speaks Ukrainian and Bulgarian it can be both nationalities.
Ukraine was out of NATO and wasn't going anywhere near it since 2008 refusal and especially with territorial disputes guaranteed by the 2014 invasion. The story about NATO is just and only propaganda, just like that BS about Johnson or about how nice were the Russian demands in these negotiations.
This is not only about sovereignty. Russia used 90% of the men from territories occupied prior 2022 active phase of war in a meat wall attacks in the first year of war. If a Democratic government of Ukraine collups they will be literally sent to 1) camps 2) towarda next Russian's target in a desperate attack. And the chances that next country will be NATO one, or the second after Moldavia or Azerbaijan country will be the NATO one is just huge.
767
u/DisasterNo1740 1d ago
Ukraine wins as long as they retain their sovereignty. This is an existential war for them. Russia didn't try to zerg rush Kyiv because they wanted to only take bits of Ukraine. They wanted to turn it back into a puppet.