> If they don't bring the war to Russia in full scale, it'll never end.

How exactly do you picture it ending? No, really. Imagine you got everything you wanted. Everyone delivers max offensive capability to Ukraine. Ukraine brings the war to Russia in full scale. Putin, or his successors, give up. Then what?

At the end of the day, Russia will still be there, at Ukraine's borders. What happens?

(Unless you're one of those who imagine a split-up - a sentiment Putin absolutely has noticed and used in building domestic support, by the way. But either way, there will be something that used to be Russia at Ukraine's borders, and they may not be very happy about their neighbors after a full scale war.)

I'll listen to any plausible scenario - plausible to you I mean, I'll defer judgment for now. Don't worry about convincing me, just convince yourself. I just want to know what happy outcome you imagine after Ukraine has somehow brought the war to Russia and won.

▲

tim333 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's looking a bit like Russia's adventure in Afghanistan. With that, after a decade:

>The war gradually inflicted a high cost on the Soviet Union as military, economic, and political resources became increasingly exhausted. (wikipedia)

and the Soviet Union withdrew in 1989 and collapsed in 1991. I doubt Russia can keep this one going for a decade. They are currently losing about 1000 soldiers a day and have a deficit of ~$100bn/yr, 17% interest rates and 20% of their oil refining capacity taken out by Ukrainian drone strikes which are escalating.

▲

vintermann 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree, actually. It looks a lot like Afghanistan.

But you remember, even though the US foreign policy establishment basically got every single outcome it wanted from supporting the rebels in Afghanistan, right up to the split up of the Soviet Union and Russia becoming a republic run on Chicago school of economics principles by a pro-US president, in another couple of years they instead got Russia back as an enemy state and al Qaeda.

Also, while the situation ended up back in a pretty bad place for the US, that's nothing to where Afghanistan ended up. I think the US should try pretty hard avoid winning, if winning means the same as the way they won in Afghanistan. And Ukraine should definitively avoid an Afghanistan-style victory at all costs.

	▲	nradov 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So what. From the USA perspective, that outcome was still a lot better than having the old USSR in place. Keep the pressure on and maybe a few more of the outlying regions will break away. A long and bloody internal civil war would be ideal but anything that keeps Russia poor and weak would be a win.
	▲	fakedang 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Ukraine is different because Ukraine is fighting under one identity, that of their legitimate elected government. Afghanistan's Communist government was deposed by the warlords, who then began carving fiefdoms for themselves, which eventually gave rise to corruption, then the counter-corrupt-govt movement (the Taliban), and eventually a safe haven for Al Qaeda. That was also the reason for the US nation-building efforts in Afghanistan to fail miserably.

▲

lossolo 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I doubt Russia can keep this one going for a decade.

They only need to keep going longer than their opponent. Ukraine has fewer soldiers and resources than Russia and currently has almost no offensive capability, as seen on the battlefield. All they can really do is defend, and even then they’re still losing ground, not much, but still losing territory. Here in the West, we’re facing economic problems, high debt, and a shortage of weapons production, especially in the EU. I’d like what you’re saying to happen, but that’s wishful thinking. And Afghanistan wasn’t the primary or even a major reason for the Soviet Union’s collapse.

> I doubt Russia can keep this one going for a decade

They have oil, gas, and minerals that the rest of the world needs, and they have an internal propaganda machine that lets them hold out for a long time. I remember "experts" saying Russia would collapse economically in 2023, then in 2024 for sure, and that they’d run out of rockets. Now it’s 2025, and that collapse isn’t even on the horizon.

	▲	tim333 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Fair enough there hasn't been much economic collapse yet but we shall see.
	▲	scotty79 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Ukraine has fewer soldiers and resources than Russia and currently has almost no offensive capability No offensive capabilities and yet russian refineries keep burning reducing its capability to produce fuel to the point that the fuel in Russia is most expensive it has ever been by a large margin. No vehicles run on crude and russia will eventually have to walk their soldiers to the front lines. > I remember "experts" saying Russia would collapse economically in 2023 Experts weren't necessarily wrong. It's just hard to notice collapse of something that's already almost a failed state that constantly lies about how things are.

▲

rcxdude 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Security guarantees for Ukraine, basically. Ideally full NATO membership. Then Russia will be extremely hard pressed to try again. This is what Ukraine is fighting for, they are practically screaming it at anyone who will listen, and pretty much the only situation in which they will stop fighting (in fact, they would potentially allow some territory to remain occupied if there was a strong guarantee (not just a promise from Russia) that Russia could advance no further.

▲

ponector 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> How exactly do you picture it ending?

With a peace agreement. Russia withdraw its troops, ends occupation and pays for the inflicted damage. Sounds fair, no?

▲

vintermann 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thank you. It's an answer, but it's very light on the details.

How do you deal with the fact that the large majority of the population in Crimea (and probably a lot of Donbas too) preferred union with Russia over staying in Ukraine? Do you deny them the vote for a generation? Ethnically cleanse them? Or do you give them a big hand on the rudder in the new unified Ukraine, like they used to have? Either solution seems like it's a powder keg for war to break out again.

So do war reparations, of course. That's basically how WW2 happened. As I see it, the best case scenario of Russia paying for all the damages is that it becomes an impoverished breeding ground for a lot of vengeful terrorism. Maybe you're more optimistic?

Also, is this peace agreement really more likely to happen if Moscow has been London blitz-droned into submission? When did your country last sue for peace in such a situation, and how long did that last? I don't have much sympathy for "political realists" in practice, but in theory, I agree with them that you should expect other states to behave like your state would have behaved.

	▲	ponector 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>> fact that the large majority of the population in Crimea It's not a fact but propaganda from RussiaToday. How about to go the Russian way: put troops there, make them do a referendum, be sure people see guns and Ukrainian flags. Anyone who will not make a Ukrainian passport soon will be deported or imprisoned. They are ok if Russia do it - then once more will be also accepted. >> Maybe you're more optimistic? There are €300b of frozen Russian money, also a 10% reparation tax on oil export could finance the rebuild of Ukraine.
	▲	alextingle a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		All of the settlers that Russia has imported into its occupied territories must be sent packing.

▲

sensanaty 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And what exactly is the alternative, in your mind? Ukraine gets conquered, and what, they all live happily ever after under the gracious and gentle hand of Putin and sing kumbaya for getting reintegrated back into the glorious USSR?

Also, you're framing this as if Ukraine is the aggressor. Maybe if Russia didn't want to be left as an "angry" neighbour, they shouldn't have started their 1000 day special military operation.

▲

yks 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, you can ask this question about literally every war. It ends with a heavily armed border, and uneasy peace until Russia gets a leader that realizes that wars of attrition destroy attacker's nation wealth just as much as defender's. Maybe Putin achieves the immortality he's dreaming about, or maybe Russia never gets a leader like that, well, at least Ukraine would get an opportunity to build up a nation that is too costly to invade.

▲

scotty79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> At the end of the day, Russia will still be there, at Ukraine's borders.

We can pave over it and turn it into parking lot on the side of the highway to China which border will start right behind Ural mountains.