Yes, I did.
I don’t think the distinction of “war” vs. “military incursion” is particularly meaningful. Set the conditions just so, and you can support a wide variety of propositions. Your initial proposition was fairly open-ended:
If there is one thing history has taught us it is that Russia wins in the long run.
Many counterexamples have been brought up, and you’ve swatted them all away by modifying your initial proposition. So … sure, I guess one can say that given certain conditions, Russia has always won in the long run. But one can also say that given other certain conditions, Russia’s scorecard has presented a mixed bag.
Is there some reason Afghanistan hasn’t been brought up in all this silly talk about Russia always winning in the long run.
One suspects the response to that, and The Cold War, would be that that was The USSR not Russia. Of course there was The Great War, and The Crimean War … A list of five here, going back to the Mongol Invasion.
https://www.rbth.com/history/326680-5-worst-russians-defeats/amp
Russia, as Russia, and as the controlling power of the USSR, has lost pretty frequently. It seems to be a tradition!
Anyway. I’m still going with both lose in the short to medium term anyway.
What’s a reasonable least poor outcome for Ukraine and how do they get there from here? How much will the West be willing to invest to get it back up to speed assuming Russia declares victory and withdraws tail between legs?
Accepting Russia’s terms seems to be the answer, but that would be surrendering for all practical purposes. As the old saying goes, it comes down to whether Ukrainians would rather live on their knees or die on their feet.
Now biological weapons seem to be on the table. Biden threatens severe consequences if they are used. What cards are left to play? Unfriend Russia on Facebook? Seriously, the U.S. seems to want to avoid direct involvement at all costs. Putin knows this and it gives him, virtually, a free hand. What more sanctions could be imposed?
A reasonable outcome is Finlandization — Ukraine passes a no-NATO clause and accepts the de facto line of contact borders as in January.
I can’t put a number on it, but I think the West would give Ukraine some semblance of a Marshall Plan, and that the Ukrainian military would soon be better armed — as is, I believe, Finland. Ukraine would experience an economic takeoff.
The biggest problem might be that Russia would resume shelling over the line of contact. If Russia offered what I’m writing, Ukraine understandably wouldn’t believe Putin is going to abide by the agreement.
P.S. I know that Finns often don’t like Finlandization. But if I was a Ukrainian parent, it would sound like a terrific model to me.
It’s like Russia didn’t learn a thing from America’s failure in Afghanistan…or Russia’s failure in Afghanistan.
But yeah. Russia is always “winning” up until the point where their empire collapses.