[crispyporkbites]

If you talk to a Ukrainian, they will tell you that the war will end when they win the war. I.E. they won’t stop fighting until the Russians are gone.

So if the regions remain under Russian control, the fighting will continue. Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up, until it’s over. Most likely outcome is that Russia attempts to hold the invaded territory for a period of years and eventually leaves when it becomes untenable for Russian leadership

[potatototoo99]

The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important.

So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.

[_kbh_]

> The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important.

They have already formally annexed, and subsequently lost a tonne of the area they formally annexed.

Nothing happened.

Crimea is also Ukrainian territory and not Russian, when they lose it im sure they throw another hissy fit like they do nearly every week now. But no one will give it any mind as Russia does it weekly.

> So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.

My guess is the war ends when enough Russians die that the Russians back at home decide they have had enough of the war.

[khochesh_kushat]

If the war continues until Russia wins simply because they annexed regions, then surely the next step is to annex a few more regions for fun and profit.

[akimball]

Finland seems obvious.

[dragonwriter]

Georgia and Moldova seem more obvious, but there is a reason that in the current wave of Russian aggression Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO and the Baltic republics and other countries of NATO’s eastern flank have been among the most assertive about the need to support Ukraine; there are lots of obvious targets if the US isn’t willing to assist Russia’s neighbors in resisting aggression.

[polotics]

Any end of the war that shows aggression pays off dividends means the start of many other aggressions elsewhere, a new world order of might-makes-right that can only stabilise again once everyone is armed with nukes.

[potatototoo99]

I don't think any outcome at this time would be a success for Russia, but feeding the meatgrinder until the world runs out of Ukranians just to send a message about aggression seems stupid.

Of course might-makes-right, the current world order was built on that - the military superiority of the US after WW2. Since then the champion of that new world order didn't shy away from invading other countries.

[polotics]

You write: "until the world runs out of Ukranians". This is very offensive, as it erases the process by which some Ukrainians are dying. Anyways, back to basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

Population Growth rate Decrease -0.39 (2020)[2] Birth rate Decrease 9.8 births/1,000 population (2020)[2] Death rate Neutral decrease 14.6 deaths/1,000 population (2020)[2] Life expectancy Decrease 71.54 years (2020)[2] • male Decrease 66.49 years (2020)[2] • female Decrease 76.43 years (2020)[2]

It is Russian that are deciding collectively that the world should run out of Russians. This is a sad fact, I wish Russians would get fairness and hope some day.

[msm_]

> but feeding the meatgrinder until the world runs out of Ukranians just to send a message about aggression

Or Russians.

[akimball]

Correlation is not causation. Perhaps right makes might. Or perhaps both are caused by another factor entirely, such as brane interactions.

[dragonwriter]

> The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions

They didn’t control much of the territory they purported to annex when they annexed it, and they’ve lost more of it since. The PR effort represented by that annexation is not a sign that the war will progress until Russian victory, if anything its the opposite.

> and the Crimea is strategically and historically important.

Crimea being strategically and historically important is certainly the reason it was invaded and seized in 2014, but its not something that makes Russian victory inevitable.

> So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict

A US president abandoning Ukraine would definitely impact the course of that front of the war, and might result in a complete Russian victory over Ukraine [0]; that won’t end the regional war that started with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, it will just shift the active fronts to Moldova and Georgia.

Not to mention the impacts on other areas of friction between the same China/Russia/NK/Iran bloc and the US, particularly in Syria, that will result from a demonstration of America’s lack of resolve, especially if it is accompanied by easing of the resistance in the European front of what has already become a global conflict.

[0] it might also shatter US relations with European allies especially the Eastern flank of NATO, which has been pushing support for Ukraine against Russian aggression harder than anyone, including the US, for reasons which should be geographically and historically obvious. It’s clear that there is a faction in the US, including at least the leading contender for the main opposition party’s nomination for the Presidency, that would see that as a plus, too, though why is less clear.

[calderknight]

Do we know if that's the view of the average Ukrainian?

[kspacewalk2]

Indeed we do[0].

[0] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-...

[calderknight]

Thanks for the link, but I didn't see any answer that relates directly to the question we are discussing.

We can look at the general support for the Ukrainian establishment instead.

According to that survey,

The polling shows that in February 2023

31% strongly approve

40% somewhat approve

7% somewhat disapprove

4% strongly disapprove

18% difficult to answer/no answer

of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. This is a drop from 48% strongly approving in April 2022.

The polling also shows that the percent that strongly approve of the activities of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky have dropped from 74% in April 2022 to 58% in February 2023.

And support of The Parliament of Ukraine is low, with only 9% strongly approving.

So, I don't think that there's strong enough support of The Ukrainian establishment to conclude that the population agrees with their stance that "the war will end when the Ukraine wins the war" (not that I'm sure that is the Ukrainian establishment's stance).

[kspacewalk2]

>>>If you talk to a Ukrainian, they will tell you that the war will end when they win the war. I.E. they won’t stop fighting until the Russians are gone.

>> Do we know if that's the view of the average Ukrainian?

Unless I misunderstood the question being discussed, it is answered precisely and directly.

"Do you believe that Ukraine will win the war?": 82% yes, 15% likely yes

"What will be the territorial boundaries of Ukraine as a result of this war?" 74% internationally recognized borders, 8% w/ Donbas but w/o Crimea, 9% status quo ante bellum.

[calderknight]

The thing in question is a stance on military policy, not a probability estimate. You can't go from probability estimate ("I think it is most likely that we will have the same borders as before the invasion") to policy stance ("I will not accept peace until we have the same borders as before the invasion").

[kspacewalk2]

The policy stance is directly implied by the probability estimate. This is certainly true if you accept my anecdata of ~6-8 of my relatives from the south of Ukraine and Kyiv who are, to a person, adamant about the vital necessity of winning the war to ensure their kids won't have to fight another one 20 years from now. There's absolutely no dithering in Ukraine about what the goal is: 1991 borders and one or both of EU and NATO memberships, with the NATO membership very likely being first.

These people didn't suffer for 13 months to accept some half-ass appeasement of a ceasefire to give Putin some breathing room to regroup.

[xtian]

That organization is funded by the US government.

https://www.iri.org/news/national-endowment-for-democracy-ne...

[kspacewalk2]

It seems like you're implying some sort of relevance to this, without stating it.

[xtian]

You don’t think it’s relevant that the source is the primary funder and arms provider of one side of this conflict?

[kspacewalk2]

I think all Ukrainians are very thankful that the US for helping them in their hour of greatest need, to defeat a genocidal invader.

Wanna know what they think of China? The answer is, they don't think of China. This is because, while China can afford the big boy pants and has probably already purchased them, they haven't put them on yet.

[pydry]

>Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up

They're pretty much going to have to give up at some point. The west can't feed them with sufficient arms and ammunition to keep up and it has blown through all of its spares. It can ramp up to match, but probably not within the next 2 years which is too late.

Western media has been putting a spin on this in the last week (e.g. blinken's "Ukraine will have to recover some territory through political means"), but it's pretty clear if you look at the production numbers, current shell rates, etc.

It's also why some Republicans are starting to feign being anti-war - to try and make this "Biden's" war, so in the event of failure the failure gets chalked up to him.

[FredPret]

America ramped up from having no appreciable military to being the number 1 military power during WW2, all in time to help win the thing.

So can the entire West crank out more shells than Ukraine can shoot at Russia if global stability depends on it? Of course we can.

[b112]

Canada, any single major NATO nation could produce arms in sufficient quantity, to make a major difference.

It's all about cost, not capability. And right now, that cost is being spread over dozens of nations, quite a few of them with wealth greater than Russia.

And that was GDP before sanctions.

So yes, 100%, we can supply the Ukraine forever. And beyond this, many countries are sending good, but aging equipment. Even artillery, ammo has age limits.

So we send older, but well maintained gear, and then buy new, refreshed supplies. That's what is happening in Canada, at least.

So Russia is actually helping the West's offensive capacities, by increasing military spending, and refreshing hardware.

[pydry]

And they could ramp up again, but it's not going to make a difference in the next six critical months especially without putting the economy on a war footing and suppressing civilian production like they did last time.

If China decides to supply Russia, it'll make even less of a difference. Russia already outproduces the US in steel (key input into shells, and a bottleneck in both wars). China outproduces by a factor of 10.

[kspacewalk2]

Nothing is "critical" about the next six months. In fact, it's possible nothing much will happen in the next six months, if Ukraine opts to spend it training the >100k troops it just called up during the late fall and winter, waiting for the armour from the West to be delivered, and building up a stockpile of ammo. Ukraine has this choice because Russia just exhausted its offensive capability in a mid-winter offensive that didn't accomplish much and has stalled out. Russia is spent as an offensive force until the mid-summer at the very earliest.

If China decides to supply Russia, it won't be in the quantities sufficient to make much of a difference, because they don't wish to trigger significant retaliatory sanctions, certainly not right now when the Chinese economy is in a vulnerable state of coming out of the COVID-era funk. China significantly underproduces Western countries in terms of military industrial complex, quantity but especially quality. I don't want to pull numbers out of thin air but it's Nx, N > 1.

[b112]

China outproduces by a factor of 10.

You mean Chinese steel, which is terrible, barely passable junk?

Yes, great for mission critical stuff.

[pydry]

Ukraine doesn't need artisanal, hand crafted shells. It needs 10x more than it already has.

[b112]

Russia doesn't need shells exploding early, or combat gear parts snapping under load.

And that's what Chinese steel does. Fail.

They've only been able to make ball point pens, with a proper round steel ball, for a decade!

[ohgodplsno]

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

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

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

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