How will the Russo-Ukraine war End? 5 possible outcomes and other polls

[DakotaHale]

Interesting article from CNBC. Also bolls.

How will Russia's war with Ukraine end? Here are 5 possible outcomes (cnbc.com) 

[Pringles]

Concerning who's winning I think tactically the Russians are losing. They're losing a lot of guys and their battle execution is poor. However, strategically they have taken Ukrainian land. 

So it's hard to say it definitively at this point. 

As for how long the war will last I dont know concerning major conflict. But this a conflict that has gone on for a LONG time. So I think these tensions, minor engagements, on and off cold/hot war kind of encounters will continue beyond 2025. I hope I'm wrong.

[The Blood]

(Meant to click the insurgency option on #1, btw) 

I would say the Ukrainians are winning just because their odds of attaining a favorable peace have gone up since the start of the invasion, but I still fully anticipate Russia's military mass to at the very least force concessions from the Ukrainian government in regards to eastern territory, NATO/EU membership, and military size, if not force the overthrow of the Zelensky government. But that obviously won't be the end of the conflict, and no matter what happens this war has already proven extremely costly for Putin and will only continue to bleed Russian equipment, men, and resources as it goes on.

Edited March 13, 2022 by The Blood

[Hestia]

Ukraine is losing in the south - though have stemmed bleeding in Mykolaiv, and have attempted to break the siege to the north of Mariupol. However, they are winning to the north and east, for the time being. Russia is also trying to set up a sham referendum in Kherson for a "Kherson People's Republic" - that 44 of their local council voted against (the others were absent/abstained - none voted for it). That could provoke people in those cities to more outright violence than just protests. 

One factor is how desperate Putin gets. He's bringing in Syrian volunteers to fight a war in a country that just had snow blanket Kharkiv. I don't think that's necessarily going to go well. Belarus is in a very rickety shape right now - there's a lot of reporting that their people and soldiers do not want to fight, and may desert if Lukashenko forces them in. Putin couldn't handle a Belarus where Lukashenko is deposed and fighting Ukraine at the same time. If he forces Belarus to get involved, it could blow up in their face. 

[jvikings1]

1. Putin cannot afford to not get anything from this war, otherwise he faces getting replaced. At minimum, the Donbas regions will be defacto independent (ie Russian puppet) and Russia will maintain control over Crimea (and maybe a few other pieces of land, such as the Arabat Spit and Snake Island).

2. It depends how NATO vs Russia goes, but I don't think China can sit out if it turns towards WWIII

3. This is the biggest risk to Putin's power. A loss would crush his grip on power imo.

4. Russia is winning because they have occupied Ukrainian land. But it is far from a dominate victory (or even a tactical victory). Soon, 4 Oblasks will likely be under Russian control (Donbas regions, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia). Though as Hestia pointed out, these are all in the southern portion of the country. The Sumy and Kharikiv offenses have not been nearly as successful and are tactical Ukrainian victories at this point. The Kyiv offensive appears to be becoming more successful than those 2, but still not a success for the Russians. At this point, it is probably a tactical Ukrainian victory with the danger of the Russians turning into a strategic victory.

5. Sometime during the summer seems to be realistic. Though Ukrainian resistance would last much longer in the event of a Russian victory and occupation.

6. If Putin's power is threatened, I could very well see him moving towards nukes. The question is: would any higher up Russians oppose such a move?

[DakotaHale]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

 

 

Realistically, Putin doesn't have much more back-up power to throw at this. As I brought up before the invasion when people were stacking number, around 2/3 of Russian military cannot thrown into the fray, as Russia needs to defend 14 other international land borders and 3 maritime coastal borders, many of them very long, of which only two (Belarus and Kazakhstan) are completely and reliably friendly (and, even then, smugglers are a problem on Kazakhstan's borders), internal security for volatile territories (like Chechnya and Dagestan), possible rioting large cities, and protecting sensitive sites (like nuclear silos), and numerous other issues that block up military, "backup," to this. If he can't make his victory conditions with the forces in play (and that is looking dubious), he may have to find some diplomatic, face-saving way out, frankly.

And also the need to garrison troops in occupied areas the more land he conquers. 

Source: I’ve played HOI4

[MrPotatoTed]

Russia has not already won, and therefore look weak against what should have been a relatively easy mission.  That's a loss -- even though they will eventually crush Ukraine.  It's the fact that it has not/will not be easy that makes it a loss even if it doesn't end in Ukraine victory.  

I bleieve outcome is between two and three -- complete purge of Ukrainian identity officially, while an insurgency fights back, becoming a permanent pain in the ass to Russia, leading to more crackdowns, leading to more insurgents, rinse and repeat.

China will support Russia financially (not because they care one way or the other about Ukraine, but because I imagine it would be financially rewarding for them to do so.  If they become the only significant country willing to do business with Russia, for example.  I do not believe they would ever join militarily though as that's sunk cost with no reward.

NATO vs. Russia would only remove Russia from Ukraine, not cross Russian borders in any significant way.  Return to status quo.

[MrPotatoTed]

10 hours ago, Patine said:

NATO vs. Russia could also wipe out all life on Earth outside cockroaches and hardy microbes. The Engines of Evil, Atrocity, Genocide, and Instant and Vast Environmental Devastation that prevented a direct conflict and state-of-war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, and in great numbers and ready to launch, despite the blight and stain upon the Earth their very existence is, and has been for over 75 years.

You may be surprised to learn that I'm actually aware that nuclear weapons exist. Ha.  I've actually been inside the American silos where they are stored.  

That was why I said NATO would not press into Russia's existing borders.  I do believe (and believe that NATO believes) that Russia could potentially use nukes to defend itself.  However, I do not believe that they would use nukes to defend their invasion of Ukraine.