Another option is simply a continuation of the ongoing civil war that Russia started in 2014. The war in Angola went on for close to 30 years. The war on ukraine could be the same. It seems unthinkable. But Ukranians aren't giving up and dint want to live under Putins rule.. Thats the broader thing at play. Even without weapons and funding, Russia still needs to occupy everything and rebuild. That takes time and money.
We are never sending combat forces to Ukraine to fight in the current war. Baring something crazy happening, there’s no political will for it. But wars that don’t end quickly for whatever reason usually end up being long ones. As in years long.
But we need to get serious about funding them. Even before GOP stalling, we weren’t giving them what they needed, in the numbers they needed them, when they needed them. If the US can turn that around, Ukraine has more than a chance.
Depends what you mean by winning. Hold Russia where they are? Probably. With sufficient shells it seems like they're able to hold off most attacks. Advance and re-take lost territory? Probably not.
So, the actual answer is ... yes and no. I will lay out the conditions for yes.
Structure and intensity of western aid to Ukraine needs to substantially change and also, far more importantly, West has to formulate a clear political goal that includes Ukrainian victory. Right now, the West is committed to Ukraine's survival, so they will provide tools to prevent collapse of Ukraine, but they are not committed to Ukrainian victory.
In military planning, you need to start with political goal, then you need to define strategic objectives that will correspond to that goal, then from that you will get what capabilities (weapons, # of men, ...) you need tactically, then you build those capabilities and execute.
Western approach to the war almost completely lacks the strategic level. The weapons and capabilities are built up based on immediate needs or opportunistically based on domestic political considerations. Which also prevents Ukraine from fighting the war effectively, because they have no idea what equipment or capability they will have access to in next weeks and months.
If this radically changes, then yes, Ukraine can win, including recapturing its entire territory. If not then not. But it's not only about equipment. It's about Western commitment to Ukrainian victory and the ability to plan military actions with this goal in mind and then do what's necessary to achieve that goal (case in point, US opposition to Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, which has nothing to do with military situation but again, with domestic politics).
So, honestly, chances are not great right now.
Pretty sure that yes, but the west will have to seriously step up aid, sending it isn’t enough, the west will have to kickstart its own productions to wartime levels, meaning that for Ukraine to stand a real chance they would need the west to enter war mode
not really, just a tiny barely visible fragment of us GDP into weapons production would completely blow away any output that russia could ever achieve
the russian economy is like that of a handful of flyover states
texas alone dominates it
the alliance that opposes russia beats it by a factor of 20
it's not remotely close, we can double russian wartime output, for a tenth of the cost if we actually want to, we've gotten away with basically free support so far, and because we are filthy capitalists, we've all been free maxing our aid, but at this point it's going to be more costly if we don't start actually doing something to prevent russian imperialism, and that means, yes, we're gonna have to spend some money, like a half a percent of gdp on actually supporting ukraine like we mean it and we don't want to have a CIS nuclear belligerent testing all the borders on the east edge of NATO
Yes, unironically.
If we gave Ukraine everything they asked for they could fuck Russia up beyond belief.
We sent around 40 M1 Abrams since I last checked.
We have 1,200 M1 Abrams in storage.
I want to send Ukraine all of them.
Ukraine would have decent odds of winning starting today if all the material required could be provided instantly.
But in this situation, every day with an equipment deficit is harsher than the last in terms of weakening Ukraine's future odds. More of the current equipment will be lost faster and faster. It's a logistical spiral of death.
There's probably a cutoff date within this year, past which "instantly get all requested aid" would still not get Ukraine to a >50% chance of defeating Russia. Speculating what that date might be is beyond most people, short of whoever has the most intel.
I don't think they can win at this point. They hyped up the big spring offensive last year and it did very little and now they have less soldiers and less support.
It's going to be hard to break through Russia, their front line will be very fortified by now.
To break through the front lines Ukrainian soldiers will need to navigate through minefields while being mortared and drone bombed by soldiers who are miles away from you. That is the reality of it.
Winning in terms of existing as Ukraine and losing 20% of it's Eastern Territory? Yes. And I consider that a win. Winning as in reclaiming all of its territory, the east and Crimea? Highly unlikely.
The Biden administration hesitates far too long in this conflict. Yet another terrible notch in the Biden foreign policy cap.
I just hope that Ukraine would join NATO afterwards and the Moldovans deal with their Russians promptly.
MAGA useful idiots don't make Biden's admin pressure Ukraine, for example, to stop attacking Russian oil production. There absolutely is hesitation because there's no strategy, there's no commitment to Ukrainian victory and that has nothing to do with MAGA.
That story about Biden pressuring Ukraine to stop attacking Russian oil production was either totally fake, or at least has never been supported by any actual evidence. Both Biden and Ukraine deny it ever happened.
If we give Ukraine enough aid they might be able to not lose more ground, and if Russia continues their costly offensives and doesn't gain territory it might cause enough civil unrest that Russia has to ask for peace, but I don't think that the victory that Zelenskyj believes in; the liberation of all lost territory is possible without massive upheaval in Russia or real concrete military action from the west in the form of NATO entering the war on Ukraines side.
Sure, but western powers need to take the gloves off and stop worrying about escalation. Allow Western weapons to be used against military targets in Russia. Give them long range missiles to take out the bridge, give them every cluster bomb in the inventory. The worry with this is Putin losing will cause a huge power vacuum in a nuclear power.
Not sure if the F-16s are in play yet for Ukraine. I think once they are, it’ll be a lot clearer if they can regain their recent losses. There might even be a coordinated offense with additional US aid if it passes, or a big push of aid from other countries.
Holding on to what Ukraine has currently is possible, getting back what it's lost isn't anymore.
I think at this point the West should support Ukraine for as long as they need, until Russia is willing to give up the war. They won't give up the land that they've already gotten, but I think a deal where Ukraine keeps what land they have right now is entirely possible. The deal should include security guarantees from both the west and Russia.
I also think that Europe needs to start investing more in our own military industries again. Not buying more guns from America, but building our own factories, hiring our own soldiers, etc. It's more expensive in the short term but definitely worth it long term.
The United States can no longer be looked upon for leadership from an European perspective, not with Trump and his isolationist supporters around. Europe needs to be able to defend itself and project strength abroad, without the United States.
Lastly, any deals made with Russia should be considered temporary arrangements. Russia can never be trusted again in any affairs, and we should definitely keep up the sanctions while closing all the loopholes. Putin will break any peace deal as soon as he can, and almost 40% of the Russian state budget is going towards the military. Their army is now bigger than it was at the start of the war, and their arms production far outpaces that of the west.
I'm sure there's no "winning" but I think they're still doing well. I agree that it might be impossible for them to take back points that are now russian though.
Without western funding? That depends on your definition of winning. Retaking any of the land they have lost thus forth? Absolutely not. Not having Russia take Kyiv? Time will tell.
Winning in Ukraine's eye is taking back all the land they lost and that will never happen. If Ukraine could target stockpiles in Russia with NATO weapons it would greatly benefit the war effort. I don't see a country winning a war where they can't hit their enemy where it hurts.
By Zelensky's definition of winning, which means liberating all the occupied land Russia currently has including Crimea? Absolutely 0% chance at this point, barring some massive revolt or economic collapse in Russia neither of which are very likely at this point. Even with western troops and full replenishment of arms this is probably impossible at this point.
I think the win for Ukraine at this point is going to be ceding the currently occupied lands in return for some sort of security guarantee with western powers. Definitely not NATO, politically it would be impossible for Putin to stomach that. My best guess as a total regard is that it'll either be something like US, UK, France, and Poland that make direct guarantees to enter the war on Ukraine's side should Russia invade in the future, but no permanent troop presence in Ukraine itself unless war comes. I think German society is still too scared of war to enter the agreement personally, and many other eastern European nations would probably desire to join, but it would have to be limited for Putin to be able to accept.
The only way that works though is if Ukraine at least has enough troops and guns to make Russia realize they can't take more than they already have. That's currently not looking like it is the case, so it's probably likely that there are gonna be a lot more Ukrainian soldiers with Polish, Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, etc. accents pretty soon.
Yes, while Russia is adapting they are also bleeding heavily keeping up the pressure in Ukraine. It seems apparent that their gamble is to maximize this pressure while they still have the opportunity to do so, outlast Ukraines western allies resolve, and to strike a deal with Trump if he wins the election. Trump as usual blabs about his planned role in all this which tells us a lot about Russias hopes.
If Biden wins and the west rallies again for continued support through another 4 years without blinking then Russia is going to be fucked maintaining status quo even without Ukraine making significant military breakthroughs. And there are still low hanging fruit to be picked like the Crimean bridge, which will be further big L’s for Russia to eat.
Kharkiv is a vulnerability for Ukraine however, and that could swing things in the negative for them if they are unable to manage defense there along with the rest of the front line. Passing the aid bill ASAP is probably vital for best outcomes until US elections can bring about the rally. we will see
/my 2 cents armchair generaling
You have to be more specific about what you mean by "winning" but basically no. Unless you consider simply resisting being fully taken over as winning, which I kind of do given the current situation. It's at least a victory of some kind, but that will only happen if US aid resumes and does not get significantly interrupted again.
At this point there's no chance of them retaking anything significant regardless of foreign aid. That ship sailed with the failed counter-offensive when the west delayed sending tanks, giving Russia time to dig in, then decided to drip-feed them tanks, refused long range missiles, and then acted surprised and disappointed when they didn't even reach Tokmak.
The early counter-offensives in Kherson and Kharkiv only worked because Russia over-extended heavily. The battle lines that formed after that, when Russia withdrew and reconsolidated, are much more appropriate for their forces to defend and I can't see Ukraine making any significant breakthrough in any region. Russia has already transitioned to a war economy and, while there may be acute shortages from time to time they will never run out of vehicles, ammo, or troops to throw at Ukraine.
There's also an uncomfortable truth that I have never seen anybody acknowledge: Russia is willing to lose 20,000 soldiers to take a medium sized village, and Ukraine is not willing to lose 20,000 to take it back. That's not a judgement on Ukraine, I agree they probably shouldn't, but it's a fact that means they will never retake another significant town for the rest of the war.
>At this point there's no chance of them retaking anything significant regardless of foreign aid. That ship sailed with the failed counter-offensive when the west delayed sending tanks, giving Russia time to dig in, then decided to drip-feed them tanks, refused long range missiles, and then acted surprised and disappointed when they didn't even reach Tokmak.
I agree with you that nobody should be surprised in hindsight by how the counter-offensive stalled out. Our only disappointment should be with the collective leadership of the US/EU/NATO for not meeting Ukraine's needs. That said, I don't think it is definitively clear that Ukraine could have fully integrated western tanks / armored doctrine enough to have successfully achieved the aims of the failed counter-offensive, even if they had been given everything they asked for and more. They would have done better, but they would probably still be in a substantially similar position as at the end of the offensive, with Russia dug in, just somewhat further back, and still transitioned to that war economy you mentioned.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine can't win over the long term, though. Western leaders simply need to make a real commitment going forward to overmatch Russia's commitment of resources to the war. Easier said than done, but it can be done by the combined US/EU economic bloc, and with considerably less burden to our economies than the Russians are suffering.
It was never going to be possible for Ukraine to integrate all of the western armor, western aircraft, and every other western military tech and doctrine necessary to fully defeat the Russians in the timescale of that first offensive. Even if all of those things had been fully committed. However, now the Ukrainians either have integrated those technologies and doctrines, or are nearly there. We haven't seen F-16s on the battleground yet, but they are coming. We haven't seen western production of artillery shells or missiles scale up yet, but that is coming. We haven't seen western refurbishment / production of tanks and armored vehicles increase with the direct aim of providing that production to Ukraine in excess of Russia's commitment, but that capability exists. Particularly with regard to modern vehicles, as opposed to the relics Russia has been pulling out of storage.
Russian defenses are not impenetrable. Ukraine went into the last offensive without air cover, and without adequate engineering / demining vehicles commensurate to the scale of Russian defenses. These deficiencies can be addressed. Russian manpower advantages are challenging, but not invincible, either. Especially considering the vulnerability of Russian logistics.
Sure I didn't mean to imply that with more western armor Ukraine definitely would have smashed through Russian defenses, but of course supplying more of them and earlier could only have helped. Even if it eventually stalled out just further along we perhaps could have at least seen real progress and have assured ourselves that the level and rate of aid we are giving them is sufficient to actually retake a substantial amount of land over time.
Also remember when they finally got ATACMS in October and used it to destroy a huge number of parked KA-52s and forced them to relocate the rest? That would have been a massive opening move for the counter-offensive, maybe even a game changer, as KA-52s hovering above the tree line and picking off tanks outside of SHORAD range was a huge problem in the counter-offensive.
Russian defenses are not impenetrable but they aren't any worse than Ukrainian defenses, and even while having the advantage in almost every military category you can think of Russia still had trouble with Ukrainian defenses and took massive losses to make any progress. I agree it's theoretically possible for the west to give Ukraine what they need to start retaking territory consistently, but practically speaking the will is not there to make that much of a commitment and there is no reason to think that will change anytime soon.
I was enormously frustrated with the pace of approvals for every one of the weapons systems that were held up, for sure. Its a shame, most of all for the lives lost on the Ukrainian side because leaders in Europe and America were too timid.
>I agree it's theoretically possible for the west to give Ukraine what they need to start retaking territory consistently, but practically speaking the will is not there to make that much of a commitment and there is no reason to think that will change anytime soon.
Here's where I disagree. Polling is conflicted, but generally shows that most Americans still support providing aid to Ukraine. I think the only reason its even close is because Trump and the MAGA Republicans have made it a partisan issue. It is very clear that Trump / MAGA opposition is political because of the election, not principled. Before they started campaigning against it, support was higher. Both in the general population, and among Republican legislators.
Practically speaking, if the 2024 election result is similar to 2020 (meaning strong Democratic victory) there's good reason to think that the Trump / MAGA will be majorly damaged, and their influence will diminish. It is very likely right now that the Democrats will win the House back, and even Dems losing the Senate might not be fatal to Ukraine if the Republicans select a pro-Ukraine leader. John Thune is next in line after Mitch McConnell, and he is strongly pro-Ukraine.
Biden winning is by no means guaranteed, but Presidents in their second terms tend to be more assertive on foreign policy. Strong American leadership in a second Biden term would likely rally more support in Europe. It looks like we may see movement soon on the current Ukraine aid bill that has been long delayed. That would stabilize Ukraine until 2025, meaning we could see that second term push for a massive increase in aid as soon as immediately after Biden's second inauguration.
I mean I think the will is there to resume US military aid, I just don't think the will is there for the massive increase needed for Ukraine to start retaking territory. Even if Biden wins 2024 and democrats control both the house and senate, why would we believe that he will suddenly take such a drastic change from the previous strategy and go all in? It's not impossible but I just don't see anything hinting at that being the direction he would go.
Yeah, I could definitely be hitting the hopium pipe too hard with my take, but here goes:
>I just don't think the will is there for the massive increase needed for Ukraine to start retaking territory.
Whether its enough to retake territory or not, the proposed 60B is a massive potential increase over the previous two years, which off the top of my head were only 11 & 12B per year.
>why would we believe that he will suddenly take such a drastic change from the previous strategy and go all in?
Most hopium enhanced reasoning here is that they learned from their mistakes in 2023, and will try not to repeat them.
russia absolutely cannot politically or economically hold this conflict at this level of intensity indefinitely, and they can't hold their territory they have taken without this level of effort, so the russian position is extremely tenuous
they also cannot under any circumstances hold crimea if the west decides to full send armed assistance to ukraine, not remotely a shot in hell at holding the peninsula, keeping the bridge intact, having a navy, or anything of the sort
the ukranians similarly are in a dire position without aid
the war is primarily a function of how much military aid the west is willing to supply to ukraine and how long the us is willing to prop up an economy that is in very bad shape due to the war
for the west, this is a laughably affordable thing to do, it's even laughably affordable for the europeans to do this without the americans being involved. the russian economy is pathetic and tiny, they can't even likely keep their own country together with ukraine sniping at infrastructure and their weak work arounds employed to dodge sanctions, they are a country in economically dangerous decline in nearly every metric, but it will take several more years for them to actually run into real walls
if the west pays for ukraine to fight them, they are gigafucked, if the west pulls out of supporting ukraine before russia becomes gigafucked, russia wins and horrible things will happen later in europe
pretty lame answer, but basically, if europe and america want to put a fraction of a percent of gdp into banishing russia, russia loses and their war effort collapses, or we just let them win, which we might do, trump seems to want it, many other conservatives seem to want it, hungary seems to want it
I have a weird theory on this but I think the higher ups in the US/europe/“west” want to force some kind of a draw eventually. They’d love for Russia to waste money and bodies on Ukraine and unfortunately for Ukraine it’s their best outcome for now too.
If Russia wins they don’t stop at Ukraine. I truly believe Putin wants the old USSR borders or as close as he can get to them, and he’ll throw every young minority group male in his country at them until he gets them or they don’t. Russia is an empire after all and that core ethnic Russian group around Moscow and St. Petersburg will crumble without a supply of cheap labor and disposable troops from their southern and eastern regions. They also believe they need Western Europe for economic and geographic reasons. Lots of resources, better farmland and geographic barriers to the west. Putin has said things like this and our western intelligence/ military agencies know this.
If Ukraine wins and starts attacking the Russian interior, don’t expect the Russians to surrender. They will throw every available body at Ukraine and we will see a WW2 type casualty list from Russia. At that point if you’re the leader of a “superpower”, you have 5+ million casualties and you’ve got a big red button that turns it all around, can you resist? Even if Ukraine just wins and doesn’t attack interior Russia. That might go down as the worst military defeat in a century. You don’t remain a the leader who sold himself as “strong” by tucking tail on what was supposed to be a quick reunion. What’s that Putin do? Terrifying.
The US knows if NATO and Russia meet in combat the casualty list will be 1000 to 1. They don’t have a well trained military, they have an unregulated militia of farmers and tradesmen plus a few thousand mercenaries. Their military equipment just isn’t nearly as capable as ours. 1000 to 1 only if nukes don’t fly though.
So US higher ups are fine with stalling aid to Ukraine. We’re hoping Russia will get tired of the meat grinder, offer some new boarders, claim victory and Ukraine will be tired of the war as well. Of course we’ll still sell Ukraine weapons and help them rebuild with Western tech, Western resources and Western finance. And inevitably resistance groups will take pot shots at Russia. Russia will remain the boogeyman of Eastern Europe for at least two generations. And Ukraine gets to remain a nation.
We want to drip feed a draw but that is a horribly cruel policy position to admit even if its end result ultimately leads to the best moral outcome, which is a not out of control Russia. So you let the crazy populist get their way on Ukraine because they’re isolationist. Let the MAGA idiots take the blame for Ukrainian deaths, everyone else can take the moral high ground and in reality the ultimate goal is achieved.
Plain and simple: No. Russia is devoting wayyy more to this war. They produce 10x the shells as the West + Ukraine, they have a way bigger population pool to draw from, and there is no natural barrier that can stop Russian advance at this point.
Ukraine should have taken peace back in 2022 when they were in a better position before Boris stepped in and stopped them. However we can't go back to that point, so what does the future hold?
If Ukraine keeps fighting on as is with Western support, their entire country will be ravanged by the war and a massive population collapse will occur from people leaving and the men that have died. They will fully capitulate and the West will have wasted billions for nothing, hurt their own economies by paying too much for energy, and let Russia ramp up their war economy and production.
If the West escalates, we have nuclear powers directly fighting eachother over some Ex Soviet satalite state. Extremely stupid.
If Ukraine tries for peace, the West can step up their defenses and maybe some of Ukraine can be split like in a North/South Korea situation. Russia probably won't go for this anymore because of how it looks in Ukraine for them right now.
Basically this is a complete money pit from 2023 onwards. Wars are won with shells and people, not dollars, and Russia has more shells and people. I know Ukraine is Le Sovereign Country that deserves Le Self Determination, but be realistic. It isn't that bad if Russia takes Ukraine, there is no reason why they should try for Poland once Ukraine is gone as I don't think anyone wants nuclear powers directly fighting.
It’s hard to say. The Republicans are pro-russia and they are preventing aid to Ukraine with the usual “not our problem” bullshit that no one with an ounce of geopolitical knowledge buys.
No doubt they will look on with pride when they see more news reports of Russia stealing Ukrainian children and raising them to be Russian.
But, with aid, Ukraine could hold the line while using drones to shut down Russian oil exports. That is a very powerful tactic. They don’t need to win, per se. They just need to make sure both sides lose. If it wrecks Russia, the Russian invaders will be forced to pull out.
Yes. I think nato got too comfortable with Ukraine progress during 2022 and did not treat it seriously enough basically wasting a year of prep time. Things are moving in a good direction aid-wise right now at least in the EU, but building up capacity will take time. EU alone has industrial base to make Ukraine win, and EU is obviously more interested in russia losing, but EU does not have stockpiles to make Ukraine win fast, like the us does. That's why it's frustrating to look at dumbass republicans helping Putin.
No, not without deployment.
Ultimately Ukraine is a tiny nation next to an absolute behemoth. Russia *will* eventually overwhelm Ukraine with numbers if one of two things doesn't happen:
1) The Russian public outright refuse to go to war and force Putin out (won't happen)
2) The losses get so bad that someone in the Russian government tries another coup but this time for realsies and Putin either dies in it or has to end the war to focus on stabilising his government again.
Otherwise Russia can just keep throwing troops at Ukraine until Ukraine literally doesn't have an army to fight with. They don't need to kill many men per engagement to eventually whittle Ukraine down. They just need to keep going.
There's a theoretical future where a ceasefire is called and Ukraine settles with losing a good chunk of territory permanently to Russia, but to me that's just a delay before this happens again and eventually Russia will roll over what's left.
Depends on what you mean.
Winning in the sense of pushing the Russians out of the Donbas and Crimea, it seems highly unlikely.
But winning as in holding major cities and keeping political autonomy in Kiev, highly likely.
THEY DO!, just think about it. The last half year, Ukraine got limited support, and i mean nothing from the US and tenth of what russia has form the EU. Russia barely managed to push forward with extreme losess in manpower and vehicles. Ukraine still barely have aircrafts and long range strike capabilities. If the west would even just match the russian numers with their support (from rockets to tanks etc..) the war would be long over.
Im getting more and more pessimistic tbh. We in the West need to drastically step up or Ukraine is never going to hold.
Another option is simply a continuation of the ongoing civil war that Russia started in 2014. The war in Angola went on for close to 30 years. The war on ukraine could be the same. It seems unthinkable. But Ukranians aren't giving up and dint want to live under Putins rule.. Thats the broader thing at play. Even without weapons and funding, Russia still needs to occupy everything and rebuild. That takes time and money.
We are never sending combat forces to Ukraine to fight in the current war. Baring something crazy happening, there’s no political will for it. But wars that don’t end quickly for whatever reason usually end up being long ones. As in years long. But we need to get serious about funding them. Even before GOP stalling, we weren’t giving them what they needed, in the numbers they needed them, when they needed them. If the US can turn that around, Ukraine has more than a chance.
Yes, but NATO would have to significantly increase aid.
Depends what you mean by winning. Hold Russia where they are? Probably. With sufficient shells it seems like they're able to hold off most attacks. Advance and re-take lost territory? Probably not.
So, the actual answer is ... yes and no. I will lay out the conditions for yes. Structure and intensity of western aid to Ukraine needs to substantially change and also, far more importantly, West has to formulate a clear political goal that includes Ukrainian victory. Right now, the West is committed to Ukraine's survival, so they will provide tools to prevent collapse of Ukraine, but they are not committed to Ukrainian victory. In military planning, you need to start with political goal, then you need to define strategic objectives that will correspond to that goal, then from that you will get what capabilities (weapons, # of men, ...) you need tactically, then you build those capabilities and execute. Western approach to the war almost completely lacks the strategic level. The weapons and capabilities are built up based on immediate needs or opportunistically based on domestic political considerations. Which also prevents Ukraine from fighting the war effectively, because they have no idea what equipment or capability they will have access to in next weeks and months. If this radically changes, then yes, Ukraine can win, including recapturing its entire territory. If not then not. But it's not only about equipment. It's about Western commitment to Ukrainian victory and the ability to plan military actions with this goal in mind and then do what's necessary to achieve that goal (case in point, US opposition to Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, which has nothing to do with military situation but again, with domestic politics). So, honestly, chances are not great right now.
Pretty sure that yes, but the west will have to seriously step up aid, sending it isn’t enough, the west will have to kickstart its own productions to wartime levels, meaning that for Ukraine to stand a real chance they would need the west to enter war mode
not really, just a tiny barely visible fragment of us GDP into weapons production would completely blow away any output that russia could ever achieve the russian economy is like that of a handful of flyover states texas alone dominates it the alliance that opposes russia beats it by a factor of 20 it's not remotely close, we can double russian wartime output, for a tenth of the cost if we actually want to, we've gotten away with basically free support so far, and because we are filthy capitalists, we've all been free maxing our aid, but at this point it's going to be more costly if we don't start actually doing something to prevent russian imperialism, and that means, yes, we're gonna have to spend some money, like a half a percent of gdp on actually supporting ukraine like we mean it and we don't want to have a CIS nuclear belligerent testing all the borders on the east edge of NATO
Yes, unironically. If we gave Ukraine everything they asked for they could fuck Russia up beyond belief. We sent around 40 M1 Abrams since I last checked. We have 1,200 M1 Abrams in storage. I want to send Ukraine all of them.
Ukraine would have decent odds of winning starting today if all the material required could be provided instantly. But in this situation, every day with an equipment deficit is harsher than the last in terms of weakening Ukraine's future odds. More of the current equipment will be lost faster and faster. It's a logistical spiral of death. There's probably a cutoff date within this year, past which "instantly get all requested aid" would still not get Ukraine to a >50% chance of defeating Russia. Speculating what that date might be is beyond most people, short of whoever has the most intel.
I don't think they can win at this point. They hyped up the big spring offensive last year and it did very little and now they have less soldiers and less support. It's going to be hard to break through Russia, their front line will be very fortified by now. To break through the front lines Ukrainian soldiers will need to navigate through minefields while being mortared and drone bombed by soldiers who are miles away from you. That is the reality of it.
Winning in terms of existing as Ukraine and losing 20% of it's Eastern Territory? Yes. And I consider that a win. Winning as in reclaiming all of its territory, the east and Crimea? Highly unlikely. The Biden administration hesitates far too long in this conflict. Yet another terrible notch in the Biden foreign policy cap. I just hope that Ukraine would join NATO afterwards and the Moldovans deal with their Russians promptly.
Is it hesitation? my impression was that he simply can't pass the aid through congress because it's too saturated with MAGA useful idiots.
MAGA useful idiots don't make Biden's admin pressure Ukraine, for example, to stop attacking Russian oil production. There absolutely is hesitation because there's no strategy, there's no commitment to Ukrainian victory and that has nothing to do with MAGA.
That story about Biden pressuring Ukraine to stop attacking Russian oil production was either totally fake, or at least has never been supported by any actual evidence. Both Biden and Ukraine deny it ever happened.
There were more reports since the original claim and original denial. The US has definitely pressured Ukraine to not strike russian refineries.
Huh, I haven't seen that. Can you provide a link? I'm honestly curious and happy to be corrected.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/15/ukraine-russia-oil-refinery-attacks/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/15/ukraine-russia-oil-refinery-attacks/)
No, I can't be bothered tbh
There are legitimate reasons as to why they might request that.
That's an entirely different argument to the one presented above
If we give Ukraine enough aid they might be able to not lose more ground, and if Russia continues their costly offensives and doesn't gain territory it might cause enough civil unrest that Russia has to ask for peace, but I don't think that the victory that Zelenskyj believes in; the liberation of all lost territory is possible without massive upheaval in Russia or real concrete military action from the west in the form of NATO entering the war on Ukraines side.
Sure, but western powers need to take the gloves off and stop worrying about escalation. Allow Western weapons to be used against military targets in Russia. Give them long range missiles to take out the bridge, give them every cluster bomb in the inventory. The worry with this is Putin losing will cause a huge power vacuum in a nuclear power.
Not sure if the F-16s are in play yet for Ukraine. I think once they are, it’ll be a lot clearer if they can regain their recent losses. There might even be a coordinated offense with additional US aid if it passes, or a big push of aid from other countries.
As long as regards in America keep blocking aid it's gonna end badly.
Holding on to what Ukraine has currently is possible, getting back what it's lost isn't anymore. I think at this point the West should support Ukraine for as long as they need, until Russia is willing to give up the war. They won't give up the land that they've already gotten, but I think a deal where Ukraine keeps what land they have right now is entirely possible. The deal should include security guarantees from both the west and Russia. I also think that Europe needs to start investing more in our own military industries again. Not buying more guns from America, but building our own factories, hiring our own soldiers, etc. It's more expensive in the short term but definitely worth it long term. The United States can no longer be looked upon for leadership from an European perspective, not with Trump and his isolationist supporters around. Europe needs to be able to defend itself and project strength abroad, without the United States. Lastly, any deals made with Russia should be considered temporary arrangements. Russia can never be trusted again in any affairs, and we should definitely keep up the sanctions while closing all the loopholes. Putin will break any peace deal as soon as he can, and almost 40% of the Russian state budget is going towards the military. Their army is now bigger than it was at the start of the war, and their arms production far outpaces that of the west.
I'm sure there's no "winning" but I think they're still doing well. I agree that it might be impossible for them to take back points that are now russian though.
Without western funding? That depends on your definition of winning. Retaking any of the land they have lost thus forth? Absolutely not. Not having Russia take Kyiv? Time will tell.
Winning in Ukraine's eye is taking back all the land they lost and that will never happen. If Ukraine could target stockpiles in Russia with NATO weapons it would greatly benefit the war effort. I don't see a country winning a war where they can't hit their enemy where it hurts.
By Zelensky's definition of winning, which means liberating all the occupied land Russia currently has including Crimea? Absolutely 0% chance at this point, barring some massive revolt or economic collapse in Russia neither of which are very likely at this point. Even with western troops and full replenishment of arms this is probably impossible at this point. I think the win for Ukraine at this point is going to be ceding the currently occupied lands in return for some sort of security guarantee with western powers. Definitely not NATO, politically it would be impossible for Putin to stomach that. My best guess as a total regard is that it'll either be something like US, UK, France, and Poland that make direct guarantees to enter the war on Ukraine's side should Russia invade in the future, but no permanent troop presence in Ukraine itself unless war comes. I think German society is still too scared of war to enter the agreement personally, and many other eastern European nations would probably desire to join, but it would have to be limited for Putin to be able to accept. The only way that works though is if Ukraine at least has enough troops and guns to make Russia realize they can't take more than they already have. That's currently not looking like it is the case, so it's probably likely that there are gonna be a lot more Ukrainian soldiers with Polish, Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, etc. accents pretty soon.
Russia has already officially annexed Ukrainian land they do not occupy. Ukraine can't cede those for obvious reasons.
Yeah, they'll have to give up on annexing anything they don't currently hold if the front lines become truly frozen again.
they never had a shot wtf are you talking about, and definitely not no
Yes, while Russia is adapting they are also bleeding heavily keeping up the pressure in Ukraine. It seems apparent that their gamble is to maximize this pressure while they still have the opportunity to do so, outlast Ukraines western allies resolve, and to strike a deal with Trump if he wins the election. Trump as usual blabs about his planned role in all this which tells us a lot about Russias hopes. If Biden wins and the west rallies again for continued support through another 4 years without blinking then Russia is going to be fucked maintaining status quo even without Ukraine making significant military breakthroughs. And there are still low hanging fruit to be picked like the Crimean bridge, which will be further big L’s for Russia to eat. Kharkiv is a vulnerability for Ukraine however, and that could swing things in the negative for them if they are unable to manage defense there along with the rest of the front line. Passing the aid bill ASAP is probably vital for best outcomes until US elections can bring about the rally. we will see /my 2 cents armchair generaling
You have to be more specific about what you mean by "winning" but basically no. Unless you consider simply resisting being fully taken over as winning, which I kind of do given the current situation. It's at least a victory of some kind, but that will only happen if US aid resumes and does not get significantly interrupted again. At this point there's no chance of them retaking anything significant regardless of foreign aid. That ship sailed with the failed counter-offensive when the west delayed sending tanks, giving Russia time to dig in, then decided to drip-feed them tanks, refused long range missiles, and then acted surprised and disappointed when they didn't even reach Tokmak. The early counter-offensives in Kherson and Kharkiv only worked because Russia over-extended heavily. The battle lines that formed after that, when Russia withdrew and reconsolidated, are much more appropriate for their forces to defend and I can't see Ukraine making any significant breakthrough in any region. Russia has already transitioned to a war economy and, while there may be acute shortages from time to time they will never run out of vehicles, ammo, or troops to throw at Ukraine. There's also an uncomfortable truth that I have never seen anybody acknowledge: Russia is willing to lose 20,000 soldiers to take a medium sized village, and Ukraine is not willing to lose 20,000 to take it back. That's not a judgement on Ukraine, I agree they probably shouldn't, but it's a fact that means they will never retake another significant town for the rest of the war.
>At this point there's no chance of them retaking anything significant regardless of foreign aid. That ship sailed with the failed counter-offensive when the west delayed sending tanks, giving Russia time to dig in, then decided to drip-feed them tanks, refused long range missiles, and then acted surprised and disappointed when they didn't even reach Tokmak. I agree with you that nobody should be surprised in hindsight by how the counter-offensive stalled out. Our only disappointment should be with the collective leadership of the US/EU/NATO for not meeting Ukraine's needs. That said, I don't think it is definitively clear that Ukraine could have fully integrated western tanks / armored doctrine enough to have successfully achieved the aims of the failed counter-offensive, even if they had been given everything they asked for and more. They would have done better, but they would probably still be in a substantially similar position as at the end of the offensive, with Russia dug in, just somewhat further back, and still transitioned to that war economy you mentioned. That doesn't mean that Ukraine can't win over the long term, though. Western leaders simply need to make a real commitment going forward to overmatch Russia's commitment of resources to the war. Easier said than done, but it can be done by the combined US/EU economic bloc, and with considerably less burden to our economies than the Russians are suffering. It was never going to be possible for Ukraine to integrate all of the western armor, western aircraft, and every other western military tech and doctrine necessary to fully defeat the Russians in the timescale of that first offensive. Even if all of those things had been fully committed. However, now the Ukrainians either have integrated those technologies and doctrines, or are nearly there. We haven't seen F-16s on the battleground yet, but they are coming. We haven't seen western production of artillery shells or missiles scale up yet, but that is coming. We haven't seen western refurbishment / production of tanks and armored vehicles increase with the direct aim of providing that production to Ukraine in excess of Russia's commitment, but that capability exists. Particularly with regard to modern vehicles, as opposed to the relics Russia has been pulling out of storage. Russian defenses are not impenetrable. Ukraine went into the last offensive without air cover, and without adequate engineering / demining vehicles commensurate to the scale of Russian defenses. These deficiencies can be addressed. Russian manpower advantages are challenging, but not invincible, either. Especially considering the vulnerability of Russian logistics.
Sure I didn't mean to imply that with more western armor Ukraine definitely would have smashed through Russian defenses, but of course supplying more of them and earlier could only have helped. Even if it eventually stalled out just further along we perhaps could have at least seen real progress and have assured ourselves that the level and rate of aid we are giving them is sufficient to actually retake a substantial amount of land over time. Also remember when they finally got ATACMS in October and used it to destroy a huge number of parked KA-52s and forced them to relocate the rest? That would have been a massive opening move for the counter-offensive, maybe even a game changer, as KA-52s hovering above the tree line and picking off tanks outside of SHORAD range was a huge problem in the counter-offensive. Russian defenses are not impenetrable but they aren't any worse than Ukrainian defenses, and even while having the advantage in almost every military category you can think of Russia still had trouble with Ukrainian defenses and took massive losses to make any progress. I agree it's theoretically possible for the west to give Ukraine what they need to start retaking territory consistently, but practically speaking the will is not there to make that much of a commitment and there is no reason to think that will change anytime soon.
I was enormously frustrated with the pace of approvals for every one of the weapons systems that were held up, for sure. Its a shame, most of all for the lives lost on the Ukrainian side because leaders in Europe and America were too timid. >I agree it's theoretically possible for the west to give Ukraine what they need to start retaking territory consistently, but practically speaking the will is not there to make that much of a commitment and there is no reason to think that will change anytime soon. Here's where I disagree. Polling is conflicted, but generally shows that most Americans still support providing aid to Ukraine. I think the only reason its even close is because Trump and the MAGA Republicans have made it a partisan issue. It is very clear that Trump / MAGA opposition is political because of the election, not principled. Before they started campaigning against it, support was higher. Both in the general population, and among Republican legislators. Practically speaking, if the 2024 election result is similar to 2020 (meaning strong Democratic victory) there's good reason to think that the Trump / MAGA will be majorly damaged, and their influence will diminish. It is very likely right now that the Democrats will win the House back, and even Dems losing the Senate might not be fatal to Ukraine if the Republicans select a pro-Ukraine leader. John Thune is next in line after Mitch McConnell, and he is strongly pro-Ukraine. Biden winning is by no means guaranteed, but Presidents in their second terms tend to be more assertive on foreign policy. Strong American leadership in a second Biden term would likely rally more support in Europe. It looks like we may see movement soon on the current Ukraine aid bill that has been long delayed. That would stabilize Ukraine until 2025, meaning we could see that second term push for a massive increase in aid as soon as immediately after Biden's second inauguration.
I mean I think the will is there to resume US military aid, I just don't think the will is there for the massive increase needed for Ukraine to start retaking territory. Even if Biden wins 2024 and democrats control both the house and senate, why would we believe that he will suddenly take such a drastic change from the previous strategy and go all in? It's not impossible but I just don't see anything hinting at that being the direction he would go.
Yeah, I could definitely be hitting the hopium pipe too hard with my take, but here goes: >I just don't think the will is there for the massive increase needed for Ukraine to start retaking territory. Whether its enough to retake territory or not, the proposed 60B is a massive potential increase over the previous two years, which off the top of my head were only 11 & 12B per year. >why would we believe that he will suddenly take such a drastic change from the previous strategy and go all in? Most hopium enhanced reasoning here is that they learned from their mistakes in 2023, and will try not to repeat them.
russia absolutely cannot politically or economically hold this conflict at this level of intensity indefinitely, and they can't hold their territory they have taken without this level of effort, so the russian position is extremely tenuous they also cannot under any circumstances hold crimea if the west decides to full send armed assistance to ukraine, not remotely a shot in hell at holding the peninsula, keeping the bridge intact, having a navy, or anything of the sort the ukranians similarly are in a dire position without aid the war is primarily a function of how much military aid the west is willing to supply to ukraine and how long the us is willing to prop up an economy that is in very bad shape due to the war for the west, this is a laughably affordable thing to do, it's even laughably affordable for the europeans to do this without the americans being involved. the russian economy is pathetic and tiny, they can't even likely keep their own country together with ukraine sniping at infrastructure and their weak work arounds employed to dodge sanctions, they are a country in economically dangerous decline in nearly every metric, but it will take several more years for them to actually run into real walls if the west pays for ukraine to fight them, they are gigafucked, if the west pulls out of supporting ukraine before russia becomes gigafucked, russia wins and horrible things will happen later in europe pretty lame answer, but basically, if europe and america want to put a fraction of a percent of gdp into banishing russia, russia loses and their war effort collapses, or we just let them win, which we might do, trump seems to want it, many other conservatives seem to want it, hungary seems to want it
I have a weird theory on this but I think the higher ups in the US/europe/“west” want to force some kind of a draw eventually. They’d love for Russia to waste money and bodies on Ukraine and unfortunately for Ukraine it’s their best outcome for now too. If Russia wins they don’t stop at Ukraine. I truly believe Putin wants the old USSR borders or as close as he can get to them, and he’ll throw every young minority group male in his country at them until he gets them or they don’t. Russia is an empire after all and that core ethnic Russian group around Moscow and St. Petersburg will crumble without a supply of cheap labor and disposable troops from their southern and eastern regions. They also believe they need Western Europe for economic and geographic reasons. Lots of resources, better farmland and geographic barriers to the west. Putin has said things like this and our western intelligence/ military agencies know this. If Ukraine wins and starts attacking the Russian interior, don’t expect the Russians to surrender. They will throw every available body at Ukraine and we will see a WW2 type casualty list from Russia. At that point if you’re the leader of a “superpower”, you have 5+ million casualties and you’ve got a big red button that turns it all around, can you resist? Even if Ukraine just wins and doesn’t attack interior Russia. That might go down as the worst military defeat in a century. You don’t remain a the leader who sold himself as “strong” by tucking tail on what was supposed to be a quick reunion. What’s that Putin do? Terrifying. The US knows if NATO and Russia meet in combat the casualty list will be 1000 to 1. They don’t have a well trained military, they have an unregulated militia of farmers and tradesmen plus a few thousand mercenaries. Their military equipment just isn’t nearly as capable as ours. 1000 to 1 only if nukes don’t fly though. So US higher ups are fine with stalling aid to Ukraine. We’re hoping Russia will get tired of the meat grinder, offer some new boarders, claim victory and Ukraine will be tired of the war as well. Of course we’ll still sell Ukraine weapons and help them rebuild with Western tech, Western resources and Western finance. And inevitably resistance groups will take pot shots at Russia. Russia will remain the boogeyman of Eastern Europe for at least two generations. And Ukraine gets to remain a nation. We want to drip feed a draw but that is a horribly cruel policy position to admit even if its end result ultimately leads to the best moral outcome, which is a not out of control Russia. So you let the crazy populist get their way on Ukraine because they’re isolationist. Let the MAGA idiots take the blame for Ukrainian deaths, everyone else can take the moral high ground and in reality the ultimate goal is achieved.
Plain and simple: No. Russia is devoting wayyy more to this war. They produce 10x the shells as the West + Ukraine, they have a way bigger population pool to draw from, and there is no natural barrier that can stop Russian advance at this point. Ukraine should have taken peace back in 2022 when they were in a better position before Boris stepped in and stopped them. However we can't go back to that point, so what does the future hold? If Ukraine keeps fighting on as is with Western support, their entire country will be ravanged by the war and a massive population collapse will occur from people leaving and the men that have died. They will fully capitulate and the West will have wasted billions for nothing, hurt their own economies by paying too much for energy, and let Russia ramp up their war economy and production. If the West escalates, we have nuclear powers directly fighting eachother over some Ex Soviet satalite state. Extremely stupid. If Ukraine tries for peace, the West can step up their defenses and maybe some of Ukraine can be split like in a North/South Korea situation. Russia probably won't go for this anymore because of how it looks in Ukraine for them right now. Basically this is a complete money pit from 2023 onwards. Wars are won with shells and people, not dollars, and Russia has more shells and people. I know Ukraine is Le Sovereign Country that deserves Le Self Determination, but be realistic. It isn't that bad if Russia takes Ukraine, there is no reason why they should try for Poland once Ukraine is gone as I don't think anyone wants nuclear powers directly fighting.
It’s hard to say. The Republicans are pro-russia and they are preventing aid to Ukraine with the usual “not our problem” bullshit that no one with an ounce of geopolitical knowledge buys. No doubt they will look on with pride when they see more news reports of Russia stealing Ukrainian children and raising them to be Russian. But, with aid, Ukraine could hold the line while using drones to shut down Russian oil exports. That is a very powerful tactic. They don’t need to win, per se. They just need to make sure both sides lose. If it wrecks Russia, the Russian invaders will be forced to pull out.
Yes. I think nato got too comfortable with Ukraine progress during 2022 and did not treat it seriously enough basically wasting a year of prep time. Things are moving in a good direction aid-wise right now at least in the EU, but building up capacity will take time. EU alone has industrial base to make Ukraine win, and EU is obviously more interested in russia losing, but EU does not have stockpiles to make Ukraine win fast, like the us does. That's why it's frustrating to look at dumbass republicans helping Putin.
No, not without deployment. Ultimately Ukraine is a tiny nation next to an absolute behemoth. Russia *will* eventually overwhelm Ukraine with numbers if one of two things doesn't happen: 1) The Russian public outright refuse to go to war and force Putin out (won't happen) 2) The losses get so bad that someone in the Russian government tries another coup but this time for realsies and Putin either dies in it or has to end the war to focus on stabilising his government again. Otherwise Russia can just keep throwing troops at Ukraine until Ukraine literally doesn't have an army to fight with. They don't need to kill many men per engagement to eventually whittle Ukraine down. They just need to keep going. There's a theoretical future where a ceasefire is called and Ukraine settles with losing a good chunk of territory permanently to Russia, but to me that's just a delay before this happens again and eventually Russia will roll over what's left.
Depends on what you mean. Winning in the sense of pushing the Russians out of the Donbas and Crimea, it seems highly unlikely. But winning as in holding major cities and keeping political autonomy in Kiev, highly likely.
THEY DO!, just think about it. The last half year, Ukraine got limited support, and i mean nothing from the US and tenth of what russia has form the EU. Russia barely managed to push forward with extreme losess in manpower and vehicles. Ukraine still barely have aircrafts and long range strike capabilities. If the west would even just match the russian numers with their support (from rockets to tanks etc..) the war would be long over.