Thanks for taking the time to analyze the situation and ask the critical question about how it will end. I can't say I agree or disagree about hypotheticals but my guess is that you see it as too black and white. The war will end, and the dangers remain high, but Putin has respected certain invisible red lines and conventions precisely because he wants to salvage a "win," a win in the same way that winning includes the ability to continue the argument that Ukraine is a part of Russia.
I see an outcome more akin to Iraq in 1991 -- withdrawal of forces, declaration of victory, decade(s) long standoff. A muddle. Just as the Soviets and the United States did in Afghanistan.
If you think Russia is losing/going to lose the war, you have another thing coming. No disrespect. As much as everyone, myself included, wants Ukraine to win, the reality is an unfortunate one. If I have to put it simply, Russia will either win the war or destroy the world.
Now, with the in depth discussion. Taking the absolute question of who is or is going to win aside for a second. Ukraine is using resources provided to them by NATO. They have little to no equipment of their own. With that said, it is getting to point where that well is starting to run dry or at the very least, slow down substantially. With the resources being provided, NATO (for obvious reasons) is hesitant to give Ukraine the equipment needed that would give them the boost necessary to make a substantial impact. This is not to mention the hit that NATO is taking on their resources as a result.
Russia is using their own resources with no help from anyone. If it comes down to playing the waiting game, Russia being energy independent, has more than enough energy and supplies, with a constant supply flow being produced and implemented to the battlefield without hindrance. They will be able to take this as long as needed unless there is a NATO intervention. This is not even considering that more then half of the entire worlds population supports Russia. Maybe not physically, at least at this point, but they support Russia's actions. I can all but guarantee that if push comes to shove those countries are going to be offering a little more than just moral support.
Ukraine on the other hand does not have the energy they need to wait out Russia. Alot of their energy is imported or plugged into Europe, sucking even more resources from NATO. They are almost completely dependent on other countries in terms of equipment and more than half of their energy. The more energy and resources poured into Ukraine, the more vulnerable NATO becomes. Where do they draw the line without intervention? Alot of European countries are already backtracking and starting to question if they can provide more. This will be leading to exhausted NATO resources and on the flip side (Russia's side) resources that have not even been touched yet, being supplied by the mentioned "over half of the world's population". That's not a good place NATO needs to be or wants to be in. It is also important to note that if NATO does get involved kinetically, we all know the implications. That dynamic is a whole different ballgame.
Even in the best case scenario, WW3 starts with a depleted allied force and a completely fresh enemy force. Worst case scenario, It goes nuclear and that is end game.
The longer this goes on it's going to come down to three outcomes. #1 NATO is going to be forced to stop feeding Ukraine all resources, leading to a literal genocide of all people still inside Ukraine's borders.
#2 NATO is going to keep providing the resources they need. In turn, handcuffing NATO and making them vulnerable to any other scenario where defense is necessary. Whether that be Russia taking the war to a NATO nation bordering Ukraine or China seeing an opportunity to pull the trigger on Taiwan. That is just 2 of the tens, if not hundreds of scenarios that are a possibility.
#3 Russia is going to get backed into a corner or NATO is going to be forced to get involved. Both of which equal endgame. With that, I would argue that the most dangerous scenario would be backing Putin into a corner risking the chance that he goes nuclear. As if it isn't obvious, to back Putin into a corner will only occur if Ukraine is starting to do anything that resembles them winning the war. And if Putin is a man of his word and he is not bluffing, (which I'd rather not find out if he is or not) Ukraine at the sole hand of NATO, is walking us right into the end of humanity as we know it.
No matter how many soldiers have died on either side or who is or is not winning does not even matter because as I previously stated multiple times, and what I want to make VERY CLEAR. Russia WILL NOT LOSE. Putin has made that very distinct. Putin either wins the war or the world gets demolished. Putting it another way, he either wins or everybody loses. That at which he is alluding to, does not mention and/or result in a victory for Ukraine nor the West. We can slice it any way we would like and ultimately the outcome remains the same.
The only way out of this to consider it even a slight victory for Ukraine and/NATO is a peace agreement. A peace agreement that NATO is seemingly adamant on not having. Which could be impart because and in my honest opinion, I think Biden got way ahead of himself and made the mistake over implementing a Ukraine victory into his reelection campaign and very early on. That leaves the 3 other options stated above. Take your pick but NON even entertain anything resembling a win for Ukraine or NATO. The question is not "who is WINNING the war?". The question is "who is GOING TO WIN the war?.
Bringing me to my last point. Let's play devil's advocate and say best case scenario, Ukraine wins, Russia retreats, NATO doesn't get involved. The damage is already done and I don't really call that a win either. The entirety of eastern Ukraine is completely demolished. I would argue that there isn't a single building standing. Judging by aerial photos, on site footage, and first hand accounts, that seems to be the consensus. More than a third of Ukraine's entire population has already been displaced. The Ukrainian male population from age 18-65 has been completely decimated. This is just a few of the many variables involved in this.
Look, I mean no disrespect by my comment and I am 100% completely on your side in terms of who we want to win the war. I want to make that very clear. You and I see eye to eye on that aspect. Hell, even with most of what you said I can stand behind. I just don't think people consider the lasting implications this war has the potential of having. They at least don't consider it far enough. I also don't think enough people are giving Putin the respect he deserves. And I don't mean respect as far as a human being or in the literal sense. I mean respect as in his ability to, his seriousness to, and his probability to take this to a level NOBODY wants to see if he starts feeling like he could possibly lose the war. I just think it most definitely should be part of the discussion and not downplayed in the fashion that it is.
That said, I do appreciate your input and the time, care, and effort it took to put your thoughts down on paper. I 100% will not take anything away from those efforts. I also meant absolutely no disrespect to you or your views. If it seemed as though I was, that was not my intent. I just think dialogue is important to get ideas flowing as I am a very open minded person. I will also be the first person to admit that I was wrong and most certainly, in this case, I HOPE IM WRONG. If that turns out to be the case, this post will be the first place I stop. Hell, I'll even meet up with you to have beer! That is a lot to digest and I apologize for posting the Gettysburg Address but it was all in good faith.
I hope you have a healthy, happy, and blessed day. Cheers!
Thanks for taking the time to analyze the situation and ask the critical question about how it will end. I can't say I agree or disagree about hypotheticals but my guess is that you see it as too black and white. The war will end, and the dangers remain high, but Putin has respected certain invisible red lines and conventions precisely because he wants to salvage a "win," a win in the same way that winning includes the ability to continue the argument that Ukraine is a part of Russia.
I see an outcome more akin to Iraq in 1991 -- withdrawal of forces, declaration of victory, decade(s) long standoff. A muddle. Just as the Soviets and the United States did in Afghanistan.
If you think Russia is losing/going to lose the war, you have another thing coming. No disrespect. As much as everyone, myself included, wants Ukraine to win, the reality is an unfortunate one. If I have to put it simply, Russia will either win the war or destroy the world.
Now, with the in depth discussion. Taking the absolute question of who is or is going to win aside for a second. Ukraine is using resources provided to them by NATO. They have little to no equipment of their own. With that said, it is getting to point where that well is starting to run dry or at the very least, slow down substantially. With the resources being provided, NATO (for obvious reasons) is hesitant to give Ukraine the equipment needed that would give them the boost necessary to make a substantial impact. This is not to mention the hit that NATO is taking on their resources as a result.
Russia is using their own resources with no help from anyone. If it comes down to playing the waiting game, Russia being energy independent, has more than enough energy and supplies, with a constant supply flow being produced and implemented to the battlefield without hindrance. They will be able to take this as long as needed unless there is a NATO intervention. This is not even considering that more then half of the entire worlds population supports Russia. Maybe not physically, at least at this point, but they support Russia's actions. I can all but guarantee that if push comes to shove those countries are going to be offering a little more than just moral support.
Ukraine on the other hand does not have the energy they need to wait out Russia. Alot of their energy is imported or plugged into Europe, sucking even more resources from NATO. They are almost completely dependent on other countries in terms of equipment and more than half of their energy. The more energy and resources poured into Ukraine, the more vulnerable NATO becomes. Where do they draw the line without intervention? Alot of European countries are already backtracking and starting to question if they can provide more. This will be leading to exhausted NATO resources and on the flip side (Russia's side) resources that have not even been touched yet, being supplied by the mentioned "over half of the world's population". That's not a good place NATO needs to be or wants to be in. It is also important to note that if NATO does get involved kinetically, we all know the implications. That dynamic is a whole different ballgame.
Even in the best case scenario, WW3 starts with a depleted allied force and a completely fresh enemy force. Worst case scenario, It goes nuclear and that is end game.
The longer this goes on it's going to come down to three outcomes. #1 NATO is going to be forced to stop feeding Ukraine all resources, leading to a literal genocide of all people still inside Ukraine's borders.
#2 NATO is going to keep providing the resources they need. In turn, handcuffing NATO and making them vulnerable to any other scenario where defense is necessary. Whether that be Russia taking the war to a NATO nation bordering Ukraine or China seeing an opportunity to pull the trigger on Taiwan. That is just 2 of the tens, if not hundreds of scenarios that are a possibility.
#3 Russia is going to get backed into a corner or NATO is going to be forced to get involved. Both of which equal endgame. With that, I would argue that the most dangerous scenario would be backing Putin into a corner risking the chance that he goes nuclear. As if it isn't obvious, to back Putin into a corner will only occur if Ukraine is starting to do anything that resembles them winning the war. And if Putin is a man of his word and he is not bluffing, (which I'd rather not find out if he is or not) Ukraine at the sole hand of NATO, is walking us right into the end of humanity as we know it.
No matter how many soldiers have died on either side or who is or is not winning does not even matter because as I previously stated multiple times, and what I want to make VERY CLEAR. Russia WILL NOT LOSE. Putin has made that very distinct. Putin either wins the war or the world gets demolished. Putting it another way, he either wins or everybody loses. That at which he is alluding to, does not mention and/or result in a victory for Ukraine nor the West. We can slice it any way we would like and ultimately the outcome remains the same.
The only way out of this to consider it even a slight victory for Ukraine and/NATO is a peace agreement. A peace agreement that NATO is seemingly adamant on not having. Which could be impart because and in my honest opinion, I think Biden got way ahead of himself and made the mistake over implementing a Ukraine victory into his reelection campaign and very early on. That leaves the 3 other options stated above. Take your pick but NON even entertain anything resembling a win for Ukraine or NATO. The question is not "who is WINNING the war?". The question is "who is GOING TO WIN the war?.
Bringing me to my last point. Let's play devil's advocate and say best case scenario, Ukraine wins, Russia retreats, NATO doesn't get involved. The damage is already done and I don't really call that a win either. The entirety of eastern Ukraine is completely demolished. I would argue that there isn't a single building standing. Judging by aerial photos, on site footage, and first hand accounts, that seems to be the consensus. More than a third of Ukraine's entire population has already been displaced. The Ukrainian male population from age 18-65 has been completely decimated. This is just a few of the many variables involved in this.
Look, I mean no disrespect by my comment and I am 100% completely on your side in terms of who we want to win the war. I want to make that very clear. You and I see eye to eye on that aspect. Hell, even with most of what you said I can stand behind. I just don't think people consider the lasting implications this war has the potential of having. They at least don't consider it far enough. I also don't think enough people are giving Putin the respect he deserves. And I don't mean respect as far as a human being or in the literal sense. I mean respect as in his ability to, his seriousness to, and his probability to take this to a level NOBODY wants to see if he starts feeling like he could possibly lose the war. I just think it most definitely should be part of the discussion and not downplayed in the fashion that it is.
That said, I do appreciate your input and the time, care, and effort it took to put your thoughts down on paper. I 100% will not take anything away from those efforts. I also meant absolutely no disrespect to you or your views. If it seemed as though I was, that was not my intent. I just think dialogue is important to get ideas flowing as I am a very open minded person. I will also be the first person to admit that I was wrong and most certainly, in this case, I HOPE IM WRONG. If that turns out to be the case, this post will be the first place I stop. Hell, I'll even meet up with you to have beer! That is a lot to digest and I apologize for posting the Gettysburg Address but it was all in good faith.
I hope you have a healthy, happy, and blessed day. Cheers!