What if Ukraine wins the war

[brainbomb]

and by win I dont mean exhausts putin to the point of a cessation of violence.

I mean Ukraine actually not only regains lost ground but then begins to tale the fight into Russian cities and actually begins taking Russian lands until Russia is defeated.

[Octavious]

They don't. There is no pathway to such an eventuality. Western support would cease at the first hint of it, and a Russian victory would likely follow. Besides which if Ukraine were to somehow move forces against any Russian cities Kiev would find itself wiped off the map.

[orathaic]

If that were to happen, Western support would likely be withdrawn, several long range missile systems provided by western nations would stop working (i think targeting failure without technical support from NATO), Russia would threaten to is nuclear weapons, sanctions would be considered against Ukraine.

More likely a military coup in Russia (which given how low status Russia holds their military seems unlikely) further internal strife within Russia as Putin's losses in Ukraine humiliate him further, Private Military Contractors threaten political stability as the state relies on them more and more, more 'unexplained' fires, and people free political prisoners by rioting and raiding prisons.

Most likely outcome, Ukraine sits by while Russia disentigrates, until a strong man rises to replace Putin.

[Octavious]

Most likely outcome, Ukraine sits by while Russia disentigrates, until a strong man rises to replace Putin.

That is a rather optimistic outlook. If Russia does disintegrate it seems more likely that we'd end up with several rival unpredictable nuclear powers with chips on their shoulders and little chance of any reunification.

Once again the West has found itself in the middle of an exciting lose lose scenario that it could have easily avoided. If we're really lucky we get to look forward to a fun future spending billions propping up a ruined Ukraine full of heavily armed people who will blame us for not doing enough. If we're unlucky it doesn't bear thinking about.

[orathaic]

Most likely outcome, Ukraine sits by while Russia disentigrates, until a strong man rises to replace Putin.

That is a rather optimistic outlook. If Russia does disintegrate it seems more likely that we'd end up with several rival unpredictable nuclear powers with chips on their shoulders and little chance of any reunification.

Once again the West has found itself in the middle of an exciting lose lose scenario that it could have easily avoided. If we're really lucky we get to look forward to a fun future spending billions propping up a ruined Ukraine full of heavily armed people who will blame us for not doing enough. If we're unlucky it doesn't bear thinking about.

Sorry, to be clear, i mean 'most likely outcome IF Ukraine wins this war' - taking the war goals which Ukraine has stated as 'winning' ie returning to the pre-2014 inavsion border.

Likewise, isn't the doomsday scenario you are describing exactly what people would have said about the collapse of the Soviet Union? We have been here before.

[Octavious]

Fair enough. Cheers for the clarification

[brainbomb]

So the other thought of this OP was do you think there is any agenda by the US or NATO to see Russias total collapse in this war?

[brainbomb]

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRss7Ejw/

[Octavious]

So the other thought of this OP was do you think there is any agenda by the US or NATO to see Russias total collapse in this war?

I doubt it. There may be a few elderly generals still around with dreams of crushing the old enemy, but the reality is that the total collapse of Russia isn't something that's at all appealing. In an ideal world Russia transitions slowly to a Western style democracy, and maybe splits amicably into several independent states via separatist movements. In an acceptable world Russia continues to be a grumpy authoritarian state with delusions of grandeur but doesn't do anything too radical and supplies the West with cheap raw materials. A crushed Russia splitting into multiple angry nuclear states that hate the West and each other is not a desirable outcome, and is considerably more grim than Ukraine losing the eastern regions

[orathaic]

The main issue with Russia splitting up and nuclear weapons is that we saw what happened in 1994. Ukraine was convinced that security guarenteed from Russia, the US and UK were all they needed to give up their nuclear weapons and sign the non-proliferation treaty.

This has not ended well for them. How secure those weapons are (in terms of central command controlled launch codes) is a question, but the nuclear material can always be taken out of the missile loaded onto a truck and detonated inside a city.

That said, i don't know where the nuclear weapons are. I have heard specualtion that a majority are in Murmansk and that there is only one road (which Finland could deny access to on their own). But in my head there could be missile silos dotted across the country, as well as submarine based weapons and air bases with air launched missiles... I don't have a clue.

Power changing hands in Russia is inevitable. But whether Putin falls to a rival within his own party, or the opposition comes to power (not that there is much of an opposition to speak of), or the state security service chooses to remove him, or the Police force decide to have a coup against the state security service and become the new elite... Most of these outcomes could have a centralised state power in Moscow as the result.

The option where the economic collapse in Russia leads to Moscow losing control of the regional governors (who perhaps raise their own armies, with promises that they will not send ppl's kids off to die on foreign soil...) seems like a smaller risk to me. But maybe i am being naive. I did read a Washington based Russian Historian on Twitter discussing the possibility, but i can't remember exactly what he said ..

[Octavious]

The main issue with Russia splitting up and nuclear weapons is that we saw what happened in 1994. Ukraine was convinced that security guarenteed from Russia, the US and UK were all they needed to give up their nuclear weapons and sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Ukraine were bloody idiots, the UK and the US were guilty of painfully short term thinking (as usual), and Russia knew exactly what they were doing. It would be incredibly easy to draw up a treaty that would have provided the guarantees that could have prevented all this, but all the West were focused on was limiting the number of nuclear states and that's what they achieved. Now public perception is that these treaties are ultimately worthless which makes it extremely hard for democratically elected governments to agree to them.

But it doesn't really matter. Ukraine and Russia have both lost massively in this war (Ukraine perhaps an order of magnitude more massively), but in terms of the end game I struggle to see anything other than Ukraine ceding a lot of the eastern territory. I don't see how a few squadrons of Western tanks delivered over the next year or two will make a blind bit of difference.

[orathaic]

The main issue with Russia splitting up and nuclear weapons is that we saw what happened in 1994. Ukraine was convinced that security guarenteed from Russia, the US and UK were all they needed to give up their nuclear weapons and sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Ukraine were bloody idiots, the UK and the US were guilty of painfully short term thinking (as usual), and Russia knew exactly what they were doing. It would be incredibly easy to draw up a treaty that would have provided the guarantees that could have prevented all this, but all the West were focused on was limiting the number of nuclear states and that's what they achieved. Now public perception is that these treaties are ultimately worthless which makes it extremely hard for democratically elected governments to agree to them.

But it doesn't really matter. Ukraine and Russia have both lost massively in this war (Ukraine perhaps an order of magnitude more massively), but in terms of the end game I struggle to see anything other than Ukraine ceding a lot of the eastern territory. I don't see how a few squadrons of Western tanks delivered over the next year or two will make a blind bit of difference.

There are multiple possible outcomes. Russian moral is low, but troop numbers continue to increase, they don't the training and equipment to utilise the troops they have to great effect, but seem happy feeding them i to a meat grinder.

Ukrainian moral is much higher, air defences protecting 80+% of missiles targeting civilian infrastructure really helps, new equipment and training (longer range missiles just announced and F16s will be next) grants them possibilities. They demonstrated shock and awe style tactics (developed by the US and practiced in Iraq) to retake the Kharkiev region. There is no reason to believe that they can't repeat these tactics with heavier vechiles (modern battle tanks and Infantry fighting vechiles) when they already achieved it with the lighter vechiles at their disposal last year.

But the outcomes are nowhere near certain, a quick Russia offensive could see hundreds of thousands of fresh troops thrown at Ukraine in the next few weeks, hitting all fronts. There could he a massive reversal of Ukrainian fortunes. Or it could collapse due to poor logistics, worse moral, and Ukrainian missile artillary taking out ammo dumps.

On the other hand, a Spring/Summer offensive from Ukrainian could result in a complete overrun in the East or the South, breaking Russian supply lines even further, isolation of Crimea, and the retreat of Russian troops + loss of significant amounts of equipment.

Two extremes are possible still. But it looks increasingly likely that Russia is on the losing end of this war.

[Omphalos]

It's not a reasonable premise. Victory for Ukraine is regaining all its internationally recognized territory. That's it. Invading Russia is nonsensical fantasy and is not a goal of the Ukrainian government.

[Octavious]

It's not a reasonable premise. Victory for Ukraine is regaining all its internationally recognized territory. That's it. Invading Russia is nonsensical fantasy and is not a goal of the Ukrainian government.

Complete nonsense, yes.

I would lower the bar of Ukrainian victory a bit more, though. An achievable victory would be to remain a viable sovereign state with funding enough to rebuild and security guarantees against future invasion. In terms of retaking territory, the chances of pushing Russia back to the lines prior to last year's invasion are low, and the chances of restoring Ukraine to its full extent are extremely low.

[orathaic]

It's not a reasonable premise. Victory for Ukraine is regaining all its internationally recognized territory. That's it. Invading Russia is nonsensical fantasy and is not a goal of the Ukrainian government.

Complete nonsense, yes.

I would lower the bar of Ukrainian victory a bit more, though. An achievable victory would be to remain a viable sovereign state with funding enough to rebuild and security guarantees against future invasion. In terms of retaking territory, the chances of pushing Russia back to the lines prior to last year's invasion are low, and the chances of restoring Ukraine to its full extent are extremely low.

Given that recent estimates are the Russia has 100% of the tanks, artillary, infantry fighting vechiles, and helicopters intended for the invasion, along with ~89% of other aircraft.

And further that they have lost an estamted 97.4% of their total inservice tanks (leaving mostly the oldest tanks they had in storage to equip new BTGs).

and the fact that the US just agreed to send linger range missiles (which will be able to reach the Crimean bridge if the AFU can make it to the north coast of the sea of Azov.

Retain Crimea is definitely on the table.

Do you think Donetsk and Luhansk will be impossible to reclaim?

What limiting factors do you see?