It depends on your definition of win, and of lose.
I agree that Russia will not win its original aim (of re-establishing the great Russian Empire.)
But Russia seems pretty successful of total, scorched-earth level of physically destroying the enemy’s cities. That’s a win for Russia.
And being bombed back to the stone age is a huge loss for 40 million Ukrainians…
Despite all the theoretical talk of Russia’s “unsustainable” losses…the losses are not stopping them. They are willing to sustain losing anything and everything,( men, materiel, and international prestige), but remain determined to “win”—by causing as much suffering as they can, for many years, with no end in sight.
It appears that F-16s might be on the menu, as well. This article is short on details one can cite, but it appears that it is actually being considered by people who could facilitate it.
Russian forces are losing much more territory than they are gaining. And with better offensive weapons, Ukraine will be able to regain even more territory. If we keep them supplied, they might be able to regain everything, including Crimea. Ukraine’s capabilities are getting better, while Russia’s are getting worse.
Question about tanks: Aren’t they all vulnerable to top-attack, due to having thin top armor? And if so, why haven’t the Russians made plentiful numbers of something like a Russian Javelin or NLAW to attack Western tanks?
Broadly speaking, unless the force differential or technology is orders of magnitude different, war is logistics and morale. That’s pretty much it. Ukraine has big advantages in both - supplied by the West and fighting for their existence. Russia’s fighting for nothing but conquest with dwindling supplies. It will take an enormous change for Russia to even have a chance at victory, long term.
What you’re missing is that the alternative of “peace talks” is also not a viable option for Ukraine. “Peace talks” would essentially mean acquiring to genocide without fighting back. Whatever chances Ukraine has on the battlefield (and my guess is that their chances of winning are well over 50%), the number is higher than their chances with negotiations, which are guaranteed to be 0% after Putin repeats the Holodomor on an even larger scale.
Ukraine isn’t choosing between living or dying on their feet vs. living on their knees. Their choice is living or dying on their feet vs. dying on their knees.
interesting chart - esp. the post-invasion section - it seems that the sanctions, esp. the price-cap on russian fossil prices seem to bite hard …
ps1: not that this will impact short term
ps2: this is also a pretty “zoomed-in” statistics that make the effect possibly look more important than it actually is
Which is exactly why Ukraine should not be attacking Russian cities, in my opinion. It would not make Russian citizens war-weary; it would make them angry and more united in favour of the war.
Agreed. Plus, Russia will need valuable property against which it can take out loans, and infrastructure to move valuable resources for sale, in order to pay reparations to Ukraine. Once the war is over, I mean. How else are they going to get out from under the crippling sanctions that should continue until such time as reparations have been made?
nobody said they’d be indiscriminately bomb RU cities …
most likely they hit military instalations and evtl. key electric/telecom infrastructure … but I don’t see them blowing up block-after-block worth of condos with bodies strewn all over the place…
In order to force reparation payments, you need IMPERIO over russia … pls remind me who can force the russians to pay? … and if the RUs say “Njet” to reparations, what will happen then?
IMHO, the scenario of reparation payments happening is lower than 0.01%
Agreed, speaking of reparations is not reasonable and very premature.
Not to mention, they sadly don’t have a good track record of working out. Please see France and Germany going back at least to the Franco-Prussian War.