The media won't give me great answers to this question and I think this I trust this community more, thus I want to know from you.
Also, I have heard reports that Russia was winning the war, if that's true, did the west miscalculate the situation by allowing diplomacy to take a backseat and allowing Ukraine to a large plethora of military resources?
PS: I realize there are many casualties on both sides and I am not trying to downplay the suffering, but I am curious as to how it is going for Ukraine.
Right now I am hearing ever louder calls of Russia winning, those have existed forever, but they seem to have grown louder now, so I was wondering what you thought about it. Also, I am somewhat concerned of allowing a dictatorship to just erase at it's convenience a free and democratic country.
Add people like Putin, oligarchs, etc. To losers, add just about everyone else, the climate, any actually important social or economic program as billions of money are burned on an unnecessary pyre for someone's ego, etc etc etc.
Right now I am hearing ever louder calls of Russia winning
Winning was taking over the county at first. Then it was kherson, and donbass, crimea, and a few others. Now it's just like 3 areas. If you're hearing anything about winning it's because the goal posts are moving.
Youtuber Perun had some good high level takes on the war. It all boils down to Western support will win. As long as support keeps coming from the rest of the world, eventually Russia will run out of material. WW2 was won (not wholly, but in large part) due to the larger economy being on the allies side.
During ww2 the involved parties and their allies were in wartime economy. This is the support that ukraine needs. I feel like today, the west is sending the military version of happy meal aid packages, once in a while, when it's politically convenient. Should we scale up manufacturing for wartime? Let's procrastinate.
Nah, the amount of aid and material they're sending is substantial, including modern tanks and artillery, as well as more mundane things like shells, bullets etc.
And they will keep doing it for as long as it takes.
It's mostly a stalemate for now. The dam destruction helped Russia funnel Ukraine counterattack on its biggest fortifications, so not much progress for Ukraine in the south. Russia resumed its offensive in the Dombass and Aavdiivka is starting to look like the new Bhakmut.
It's an attrition war and Russia is losing like 2 or 3 times as much as Ukraine in men or material. But Russia has much more men than Ukraine. Russian morale is very low, but Ukraine support from the west is under big pressure, both from Russian propaganda and conservative/fascist political parties. This last one is the real war happening now.
Next year will be important because of the elections in the US. What happen on the battlefield is still to be seen.
Ukraine has actually established a bridge head in the south now, so they might eventually start attacking that direction. The water level has long since receded.
Yes. And it is a great victory. But at this pace it would still take a century to get all the territories back, and winter is ahead. I am very hopeful that the beach head will lead to something better, but that still has to happen. Meanwhile, nothing much happened on the grand scale.
Yes, but Russia is also supported by Iran and China. And there's no sign of political collapse in Russia.
I'm not saying Russia is winning. It would take them a millenia to conquer Ukraine at this pace. But I think currently they are only buying time to wait for US election. After that, and depending on whether a breakthrough happen or not before that, peace talk may happen, or not. Time will tell.
It's a stalemate, largely. While Russia was massively on the backfoot earlier in the year, they mined massive swaths of eastern Ukraine before partially retreating.
Which makes it unlikely for Russia to actually have any future forward progress, but it also stymies Ukraine from doing the same except extremely slowly. There's still been several victories for Ukraine over the past few months, but they haven't changed the fighting area much.
It's largely a war of attrition to wear down Russia now, who has been having more and more internal issues as time goes on.
That doesn't seem right. In 2023 they actually lost more ground than they gained. At least that was the situation until this september, but i don't think there where significant developments in the last 2 months.
The numbers are so small, it's not an argument worth having. What is certainly true is that Russia is sending wave upon wave of men to their death against Ukrainian defences. All for very little gain. Russia lost more people in November than any month so far in this conflict, and any month during Afghanistan. The numbers are horrific. Putin has just ordered another round of drafting, and they were scraping the barrel last time.
Ukraine is, slowly and painfully, gaining ground, so by that measure, they are winning.
Really? I was hearing the opposite all this while.
PS: Slowly and very painfully, fuck, I wish there was an end to this war and we could return to status quo!
From where? There are multiple, reasonably reputable maps available that show the lines, and regardless of who the map makers support, they have to be accurate because of how easily they can be proven wrong if they make false claims.
Besides, much like Vietnam, or the many wars in Afghanistan, victory won't happen on the battlefield, it will happen when the invader finally gets tired of paying the price of war.
From euronews news bulletins I know Ukraine has crossed the dnipro and cleared a stable bridge head to get more troops to that russian occupied side. Also they said that nuklear reactor the russians occupied, near the front, is in danger again, because it has been cut off from electricity and had to run gasoline generators to cool it.
As others have said, it's a war of attrition. There's no end in sight. As it stands, we can only speculate on who is winning. Russia have so far failed to make any significant gains, and Ukraine have so far failed to push the Russians out.
It's a bit like the stalemates of trench warfare in WW1. Something will have to give eventually.
The media won't give you "an answer". Is a war like a board game where everyone can see the pieces and count the score according to the rules? What is Russia objective? Idk. Are they meeting it? Sure, to some degree. At what cost? We'll we only have a small sense of the costs.
Is Ukraine "winning"? Well they have lost so much but not everything. Are they meeting their objectives? We'll their state didn't fall. That's good.
And you just want some OP ED at NYT to just sum it up like it's a football game?
Unimportant-to-you is fine, but internet consensus is very poor.
Think of a topic you know the most about, and go into an internet space where that topic is heavily discussed by the public at large, instead of other huge fans.
You will very quickly notice how useless internet consensus is.
It's the same phenomenon that makes fast food chains the most successful restaurants, despite not being the highest quality.
Russia should have had the conventional phase all finished in a couple months, so by that measure Ukraine. Russia has also lost territory the whole way past the battle of Kiev, so by that measure also Ukraine. Neither look set to win any time soon, so by that measure (which is probably the important one) it's a stalemate. The big variables now are Western support and Russian political stability as the conflict drags on. Neither side is close to running out of men.
The claims that Russia was winning the whole time come from basically the geopolitical version of flat earthers, who believe exactly the opposite of what everyone else does. Or actual Russian agents, but as far as I can tell that's rare.
I'd say the only ones winning are those selling stuff to Ukraine and Russia. I also remember a panel some months ago, about how the other EU countries will help rebuild Ukraine once the war is over. To me, it looked like they were already slicing the not even dead body in order to profit off it.
Ukraine as a whole is at a bigger loss, given all the infrastructure damage and population losses, this one counting both deaths and people fleeing the country.
Slicing it up like slicing a cake. Dividing up the profits between themselves. Rebuilding a country doesn't happen for free you know. There's no depths to the debt the west can plunge Ukraine into over this war, unless we force Russia to pay. I hear they have lots of oil.
It's considered a positional stalemate, and that is politically advantageous for Russia. Both parties have been able to set up considerable defensive positions, making progress extremely costly. Both parties are still fighting for progress nonetheless, where Russia has the most trouble achieving it and Ukrainian forces are making small gains (field by field) on a consistent basis. But knowing that the frontlinie is many miles deep and there is intense trench warfare to make a few yards progress... There will be no swift or decisive victory on either side.
Putin has most of his followers convinced that he is fighting nato backed nazis. So even when Russian war tactics are brutally inefficient and the losses in personell and equipment are enormous, there is little internal political backlash. Internationally the conflict is seen as a regional dispute. Since Ukraine isn't a part of a large international alliance. Western sanctions on Russia aren't as impact full as they could have been.
It's looking likely that the war in Ukraine is going to last a very long time. With guerilla attacks on Russian territory becoming more likely and higher in frequency. Russia doesn't have the equipment left for large scale invasions, doesn't have the money to create meaningful reserves. And the kremlin needs defensive power in other places along its border.
European and western sentiment is that Putin will not stop until the old ussr borders are back under his control. And being securely and unquestionably positioned as world superpower.
Well, you're going to get different responses, many of which are good points, and depending on the person you asked.
But imo, it is hard to tell. And the best response we can say is: we don't know. Ukraine retook many territories but so has Russia. Both sides suffered many casualties. The problem with analysing the war is the white noise coming from emotional responses on the events of the war happening at the time.
When Ukraine was invaded, everyone thought they will capitulate. They didn't. Kyiv then retook Kharkiv Oblast, everyone thought Russia will surrender. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was hyped, but disappointed many. Prigozhin tried to coup Putin and thought it is the end of Putin, but they're still here.
So, the best response to your question is, we don't know. And that's the most certain answer you could get and that is not a bad thing. For those who tend to forget, we still have the fog of war shrouding our vision. We don't know what will happen in many months to come. Hindsight only tends to be 20/20 after an event.
However, I think the two major considerations for this year is 1. Ukraine had been effective in interdicting Russian logistical lines and sent the Russian Black Sea fleet reeling away from Crimea. Those are Ukrainian strategic gains that are often forgotten and not seen by the mainstream as important, who see ground combat as more important. 2. Though on the other side, the Russian support for Putin is still strong and either they support the war or ambivalent. In this case, Putin won the hearts and minds of Russians to either support or turn a blind eye to the conflict. Propaganda war is as important as military one to convince enough of the public to support it.
From what I've heard, Ukraine is very slowly taking back strategic locations. At the moment, they're better equipped than the invaders, but that could change if Russia secures a weapons deal with China or NK. Ukraine also has a wide support (monetary, humanitarian, and military) from western nations. Ukraine has the advantage in the quality of their warfare, Russia in the quantity of meat sacks they can throw at the front.
In my opinion, even if Russia somehow occupies all of Ukraine (which I find unlikely), they will be a pariah nation for many decades. A significant part of their economy is energy export (fossil and nuclear) and the EU is already trying to separate itself from that energy dependence.
Tbf the guy that said arms dealers is 100% correct.
My opinion is that Ukraine has a light-moderate advantage right now.
It mainly comes down to American and EU politics. If both aid packages pass, then Ukraine is in a good position to build up over the winter and continue slowly pushing to cut off Crimea, which is the biggest prize. Steadily growing air power is going to make a significant difference, we already saw recently how helpful Russia's re-emerging air power was in grinding down the push across the Dnieper.
As an American I'm fairly confident our aid package will eventually pass. Tying it to Israeli aid is a punch below-the-belt, the repubs can't back away from that. They're in negotiations currently, probably stalling. Israel could really use that aid though...
My understanding of the EU aid is Hungary is being a pain, but there's other tricks available in a big bureaucracy, so we'll see. Maybe a European can fill that part in better.
Militarily the Russians are slowly and steadily pushing in the east. There's nothing terribly important over there, but land is land, towns are towns. Their troop losses are high but they also have a high intake supposedly, so it's possible they can keep this up for awhile. War materiel is continuously exhausting though, people may have noticed they are not shooting nearly as much artillery as they were in the initial parts of the war. But, you don't actually need tanks and heavy equipment and shit per se, so, it's a grinder. Their war support is starting to crack, but is still strong. They might have more mines than Ukraine does Ukrainians, so that's annoying too.
The Ukrainians are digging in. Or at least that's how it seems, they can be a little tricksey sometimes. They're still ramping up though, building more forces. They have plenty of will and soldiers and grain, but need more money and materiel. The capture of the Russian side of the Dnieper was impressive though, that probably shouldn't have happened. If they get the resources, they can probably win.
Oh, and the railroad between China and Russia blew up. No idea how that might've happened... Was the only one though.
I’ve been following along daily, have an army background so take from that what you will.
I think Russia is winning the war, strategically. They are losing a small amount of ground, but there’s no breakthrough and every day that goes by in the current state is a day closer to a fragile peace deal that secures Russia’s winnings. I think anything beyond Krim is just buffer zone. This is fundamentally about securing access to ocean - Russia is extremely constricted in getting its navy to sea.
With a frozen war Ukraine won’t be admitted to NATO - in that way, I think Russia is content to have a frozen conflict, because it creates a weak buffer state between Russia and NATO.
So in terms of securing its desired outcomes, Russia is winning.
I would disagree. It is still far from being able to tell with clarity if Russia is winning. Plenty of things could still happen. Somehow, we're often forgetting naval warfare and focus too much on the army/ground level. Ukraine managing to turn the Russian fleet scurrying away from Sevastopol, as it had become too vulnerable for missile attacks, is no easy feat. And they killed the top Russian Black Sea officers (I'm convinced Admiral Sokolov is dead). This gave Ukraine needed breathing room to finally resume grain shipments, which could help Ukraine further finance the war and remove Russia's stranglehold and ability to blackmail the world from accessing grains.
Although, how would all these translate to victory on land? Obviously, Ukraine will have more money coming in from exporting grain and other commodities. Might this allow them to buy more and better weapons? An option I see is Ukraine being able to intertidict Russian logistical lines, which they have proven to be pretty adept at. But the question is, would this lead to desired strategic successes and more immediate outcome desperately wanted by the West (we don't need to know what Ukraine wants because they could keep going forever if they could)? Only time will tell.
The propaganda is strong against the Western system. There is an argument to be made that the origins of this conflict are in energy finds in the Black Sea. Ukraine is uniquely positioned to take advantage of access to the European and Asian markets. Competition in these sections would threaten oligarch monopolies. These energy monopolies are granted to the oligarchs by Putin himself and this is the entire basis of power in the Russian Federation.
This is simultaneously the reason for the conflict and why the oligarchs have been lock step the entire way.
Seems like a stalemate at the moment but it could really go either way from what I can tell. It depends upon if the west will lose interest and cut back on support or if public opinion in Russia wanes towards wanting an end to the war. At the moment it seems neither side is willing to accept the current status quo.
I don't think either side will be able to decisively beat the other, but that's not how these things usually end anyway.
Actually, I think it's pretty funny in a sad sort of way that Americans don't get how this is going to go. It's really obvious that Ukraine doesn't need to win, they just need to keep fighting until Russia goes home. Western aid isn't even really making much of a difference in the eventual outcome of the war, it's just reducing the damage that Russia is doing to Ukraine and bring that inevitable end closer faster. We've seen over, and over, and over again that once a group of people actually make up their minds to resist, there is nothing that can stop them. Even if the aggressor can bring overwhelming military superiority they will eventually give up and go home, and Russia can't even do that.
The question isn't who will win. The question is how many war crimes will Putin commit before admitting he lost this war in the second week.
The war is largely in a stalemate at the moment. Odds are, if this continues for years longer, Russia will eventually win just by virtue of having more people to send to die for the country, but if it comes to that, Russia will suffer far moreso than they already are, both due to increased strikes within Russia and just loosing the majority of their working population.
Seems Russia is slowly grinding out Ukraine and if Russia decides to give up at any point or Ukraine negotiates then russia will probably have gained territory.
I'm not qualified to speak on this. It is however my opinion that in war, nobody wins, but military suppliers make bank.
To answer "who's winning" can vary based on what "winning" is looks like, or what the goals were. As others have pointed out those goals have changed over time.
For a play by play recap I listen to Denys Davydov... He seems upfront about both Ukranian and Russian victories in his analysis based on various video, image and map reports, even if he supports the Ukraine side.
While Denys can often provide good coverage on Ukraine, I suggest avoiding him, as at the outbreak of the situation in Gaza and Israel, he shared many videos of Palestinian kids and women running from artillery under the captions like "watch how the roaches scatter".
I tend to think as well that the situation in Ukraine is currently a stalemate. The fact is that, while Russia is losing weapons, Ukraine is gaining them. There's also a different quality of life for Western weapons compared to the Russian ones because, well, that's something that the West actually cared for back in the Cold War days. USSR and its satellites only cared about meeting the 5-year quota, or whatever they cared for in order to show the West they were more industrialized and whatnot. Western weapons are also more accurate and tends to integrate more hi-tech inside, so that you can use them for one-strike-one-kill instead of carpet bombing large swaths of land until nothing moves there. This is why, e.g. you have Grad systems with around 42 projectiles or so, all usually being fired in chain, while on HIMARS you only have a maximum of 6 projectiles, which are usually fired individually.
All this now proves vital for Ukraine, as it has to fight a country with a larger manpower, a larger (pre-war at least) stock of vehicles and a larger stock of ammunition. Ukraine, however, did not manage to become a powerful force on the counter-offensive. It does a great job at hardening Russian attacks, causing incredible amounts of damage for every inch of land lost, but the required weaponry for a successful breakthrough has been in short supply. Besides that, what Ukraine initially planned to do was to do a combined arms attack. And you cannot do this without a good amount of air support - which Ukraine was and is currently lacking.
IMO, it remains to be seen what will happen when Ukraine will finally start to operate F-16 jets (among other equipment it started to build in-house like drones), but as of now, on the equipment and fighting side, Ukraine is currently winning. On the loss side, while Russia loses more people and equipment than Ukraine, I'm afraid the numbers are proportionally the same for both sides. This is why I see it as heading to a stalemate in the foreseeable future. But Russia can no longer win what it initially planned, it is constantly changing the objectives in order to show the world that it achieved something, and Ukraine simply cannot lose. Russia's only advantage right now is being on the offensive itself.
Right now I am hearing ever louder calls of Russia winning, those have existed forever, but they seem to have grown louder now, so I was wondering what you thought about it.
Where are you hearing that? I have not heard that Russia is taking a pounding and so is Ukraine.
Right now, it's a stalemate.
It is a war of attrition at this point and if it drags out long enough, Russia wins because they have more people to throw at the war.
I do not think the F-16 is going to make a large difference in the war. People who never served are the ones thinking it'll change the war.
The question is how long can the Russian soldiers hold out? I do believe once Ukraine breaks through the lines will collapse quickly but they've yet to break through.
I do think NATO has done a disservice in training the Ukrainian military to fight a combined arms fight but then not supplying them with the weapons to fight a combined arms fight.
I personally think Ukraine will win but it is going to be a long fight.
Well Russia holds a good amount of Ukrainian land. The fighting is essentially a stalemate. Russia may have "won" that land.
No one may win any more sizable land moves. For future fighting we'll have to see. Ukraine relies on Western support because Russia is a bigger economy and bigger population. We'll have to see how Western support continues and how the Russian economy proceeds with sanctions.
War is never pretty, never fun not clean. Everyone involved ultimately loses and brings tragedy to the unfortunate lifes and families on both sides.
However, if we are speaking purely about "winning" as if it was a game, then the Ukraine certainly is beating Russia and winning. However a victory in a war might not mean that the people of the country won't be devastated afterwards.
Frankly, we don't really know yet because we can't predict what either side will do, or what concerns/problems are boiling away under the surface.
What's important about real world events is that they are not like a board or video game. In a video game it doesn't matter if you flawlessly KO your opponent or win by the tiniest sliver of health, a win is a win.
In the real world though the resources and lives poured into conflicts like these can very well be used for something more productive. At any moment russia could swallow their pride and pull out, but they could also fight to the last man to never admit defeat.
Additionally the methods of victory differ between Ukraine and her allies (the west).
The US and Europe want a swift victory to garner support from voters. So they push Ukraine to do risky offensives and maneuvers.
Ukraine on the other hand wants to play its cards very carefully. Right now they recognize for every Ukrainian casualty, there are multiple Russian casualties. They want to maintain that postive ratio and do not want risky or loss heavy offensives. You can see this mindset at work in Bahkmut. The west wanted Ukraine to pull out of Bahkmut immediately but Ukraine recognized the extremely favorable casualty ratios, with many Russian casualties for each Ukrainian which is why they held on so stubbornly. It wasn't to hold Bahkmut, it was to grind down the Russian force.
My thumbs are dying so I'll direct you to a very accurate and detailed source of info on the conflict. Check out William spaniel on YouTube, he is an author and has many videos on the conflict, outlining the goals and problems on each side.
Considering this is a war of attrition, "winning" such as it is doesn't look like conscripting every man, woman and child that can hold a gun to get blown up in trenches. They should have just negotiated a year ago.
When Trump is crowned GEOTUS,
after the Repubs win 2024 ( the economic rug-pull in 2024 will remove the Dems, through backlash-vote )
then the tide will turn, as the gutted remains of NATO/OTAN try to understand how to endure as the TOTAL global geopolitcs table got thrown, violently, on its side,
scattering all the playing-pieces, all the indicators, EVERYthing gets flipped, then.
GEOTUS Trump will back Russia & Saudi Arabia, both.
Possibly China, as well ( he does have investments in China ).
The remains of the Western-cultures' alliance are then on their own.
US Civil War Part2 will probably destroy about a quarter billion lives in North America within 14y,
and ww3 begins a mere 7y after Trump's crowning ( +/- 1 year ).
Things are going to be VERY tough in Eastern Europe,
with the US pouring its support into exterminating the former Soviet Bloc countries who oppose Putin/Russia, with the US backing Russia.
Wait & see.
It's going to be hell, on Earth, for almost-all of this century.
The drastically quicker-than-simulated sea-level-rise isn't going to help,
particularly since Greenland's meltwater will drown the North Atlantic coasts ( it takes 1000 years for it to redistribute to near Australia. The 1st few centuries it'll be predominantly drowning the West ), and when you add enough water to raise the PLANET's sea-level by 1 metre,
but you put it ALL in the North Atlantic...
it may well be 3m around the North Atlantic, this century.
( there is a powerlaw underlying planetary heating,
current atmospheric CO2 requires the planet to equilize at more than +5C.
When you add-in the anthrogenic methane, as CO2 equivalent, the planetary equalization temperature is more than +8C.
All the "+1.5C" and "+2C" are baseless delusions, contradicted by historical data of the last couple million years. )
Anyways, eyes-open, calibrate, prepare, & earn making oneself competent for what is guaranteed to come, right?
I don't think Russia has any chance of winning. The only reason Russians are still in Ukraine is because the west is too pussy to ship the real guns.
This makes you wonder whether people benefit from this or its trully a valid strategy not to bug squash the bully cause they might go mental.
Either way, the war doesn't have to end through military or peace agreements. Russian economy seems to be ending first. As grim as that sounds but maybe that'll get Russians caring.
it makes ZERO sense to me that the U.S. hasn’t provided everything possible to push Russia out.
Israel
China
Venezuela getting prepared to invade one of its neighbors.
Couple of nations in Africa are getting ready to go to war too, I forget what the name of it was, Uganda? They're wanting to get a path to the ocean.
The United States needs to be ready not only to fight in Ukraine, but also about four other places in the world right now. I'm in full support of giving them everything possible, but there's a lot of valid reason not to go full of ham.
I believe you are thinking of Ethiopia going to war with Eritrea. Eritrea recently gained independence from Ethiopia and now the Ethiopians want a sea port again. Watch that turn into an Iran vs USA proxy war too.
I've been following Professor Phillips Obrien for analysis on this subject, and he largely shares your opinion.
He thinks that if the US really wanted Ukraine to win the administration would have been providing much more long-range weapons, and that they still could. Ukraine can still win, but it depends on their allies actually helping them do that.
It's bizarre & frustrating. It's crystal clear that NATO countries or EU countries could provide the support to help Ukraine kick the shit out of Russia.
My brain hurts wondering why it hasn't happen. This shit really makes me believe in some type of stupid crap like Illuminati 😉
Didn't see you reply but typed something very similar. We train the Ukraine army for combined arm warfare then we don't supply them the combined arms. It's like we want it to drag out.
Given that it is essentially a proxy war between the US and Russia, its quite possible the war could end without either side actually "winning".
Obviously the US will continue to support the war for as long as possible, and if that means turning ukraine to ash and destroying the economies of western europe, well that is a price they are willing to pay.
There are still shortages in Russia and if the gas and electricty shortages continue through winter that could be devastating in Russia. It wouldn't take that much to tip the country into chaos, what the response of the Russian govt to Ukraine would be - possibly using their really large missiles that can wipe out a whole village - is completely unknown.
We don''t really understand the mentality of the Ukraine govt. The fact that many western weapons seem to go missing before they reach the front and the coincidence of the Azerbaijan getting a pile of muntions just after deliveries to Ukraine may indicate that the aims of the Ukraine govt may not totally align with those of western europe.
The fact that many western weapons seem to go missing before they reach the front and the coincidence of the Azerbaijan getting a pile of muntions just after deliveries to Ukraine may indicate that the aims of the Ukraine govt may not totally align with those of western europe.
Or it might indicate that you‘re somewhat gullible and consume too much propaganda.