Will Russia Lose the War in Ukraine?

This is a really good question and has piqued my interest since it speaks directly to my doctoral research, rendering me somewhat qualified to answer this question from a behavioural scientific perspective.

To understand the psychological outcome of this war, we need to understand what it is that Putin wants and then determine his current mindset with regards to the attainment of those desires or preferences. And here we run into problems, because in spite of the copious amount of ink spilt on the topic, nobody knows exactly - perhaps not even Putin himself - what he wants.

The signalling from the Kremlin ranging from NATO encroachment through de-Nazification, the possible dangers of future attacks, to downright imperialism, etc., etc., leave Putin lacking a unified message to his armies and people, and this is one of the reasons why the Kremlin have lost the information war so comprehensively.

However, it presents Putin with the unique situation within which he can slip and slide his way through this war without ever admitting defeat. For instance, following Mariupol he could simply have declared the de-Nazification process complete, called it a victory and withdrawn his armies. He could, but of course he never did, suggesting that it was never a true motive for this war.

If not true motives, what can we discern of his desires from his direction? For me, the helter-skelter of the first hours of the war is a solid indication - Putin never expected this war to last as long as it already has. In spite of the vatniks assuring us that ‘Kyiv was only a feint’, the observations on those first three days of battle belie such an assertion, baseless as it is.

Putin wanted Kyiv and he was certain that just in Crimea in 2014, his forces would take it with the minimum resistance. Zelynskyy was anticipated to flee Kyiv (or be assassinated by FSB teams inside Kyiv) and all resistance was sure to collapse at the first sign of trouble. However, none of this happened and the elite of the Russian Army were punished mercilessly for their hubris, most notably at Hostomel Airport.

As it may, Putin wanted Kyiv and for whatever we can say of the absolutely catastrophic opening phase of Russia’s war (and by God, it was so incredibly bad), he desired the Ukrainian government to collapse. Since that never happened, Putin has had to revise his preferences for the war, and then revise these again, and again, and again - in the process relieving no less than five (possibly six) theatre commanders of their posts, a list that includes the Butcher of Aleppo, Aleksandr Dvornikov - the Kremlin’s blue-eyed boy for all matters relating to genocide.

As the Russian armed forces struggle to reach even the reduced objectives and as the Ukrainian forces are now counter-attacking, I notice that the Russian invaders have become entirely reactive - they no longer dictate where the fighting should occur and when. For instance, when Ukraine broadcasted their plans to counter-attack towards Kherson, Russia drew down the resources for their offensives in Donbas and rushed these to the south to counter the Ukrainian initiative.

As the Russians crammed forces across the River Dnipro, Ukrainians simply applied their long-range artillery to destroy the sole remaining bridge there (the Antonivskyy bridge) and the Russians on the western bank of the Dnipro are now stuck and cut off from their lines of communication. In the mean while, Ukrainian forces started counter-attacking towards Izium and Russia lack the reserves to respond. Nor can Russia redeploy their forces in Kherson, because the bridge is down and the entire area is now a death trap.

But how does all of this translate into a response on your question? On the one side of the coin, it is legitimate to argue that Russia have already lost the war and that it is purely their preponderance in materiel that afford them to continue purely as a face-saving effort. But I understand that the psychology of conflict outcomes resides in a rarefied atmosphere and there may be those who prefer a more concrete indication of outcome.

To those, I believe that the Russians’ lack of reserves and initiative will cause the issue to come to a head before the end of this year, perhaps even before winter. Whichever way, it is only a matter of time - Russia’s defeat in Ukraine is now inevitable and I’m sure that Putin regrets the entire affair deeply.

Sure, history is over, and Russia is tamed and will never be a threat to America and Europe.

Russia is a country of 142 million compared to 332 million in the US, 447 million in the EU, and 67 million in the UK.

Russia's population growth rate is -0.22% (2022 est.), the 213th in the world. The median age is 40.3 years. Life expectancy is 72.44 years but 66.92 years for males.

GDP per capita is $26,500 (2020 est.). Real GDP (purchasing power parity) of Russia is $3.9 trillion. The EU has a combined PPP of $21.65 trillion. Ours is about $20 trillion. The UK is $2.8 trillion.

You must do a lot of correcting of these Russia supporters who keep telling us that Russia will unleash nuclear war and destroy America while invading and conquering our NATO allies if we continue to support Ukraine.

Russia poses no real conventional military threat to Europe. The US has provided the security umbrella for Europe since the end of WWII. If European countries felt any real threat, they would have spent more money on defense. Most of the NATO countries are not even meeting their 2% of GDP obligation.

The argument is whether Russia or China is number one or number two as threats to America.

No argument at all. China is by far the biggest threat, hands down. Russia is no serious threat to the US militarily. Mutual Assured Destruction remains the best defense.

Ukraine is doing a great job of helping our strategic interests.

Ukraine is a drain on our resources and a distraction. The sanctions have backfired causing more pain for the West and the specter of famine and civil unrest globally due to high energy and food costs. We are depleting our own arms supplies to send to Ukraine. We are draining our SPR. We have sent tens of thousands of troops to Europe, which will increase defense costs. We are hurting ourselves strategically vis a vis China.

You still have not answered my questions as to how far are you willing to go to support Ukraine? American troops? What is the end game? How long are we willing to support Ukraine militarily and economically?

I can only go by what I’ve seen personally over the last 20 years.

My firm had offices all across eastern Europe with teams in both Russia and Ukraine. It’s a highly technical professional area and I used to work with both. Because of the sanctions, the Russian side of it has split off and is now a walled garden that we can’t talk to even if we wanted to - Russia’s blocked the ability for them to talk to us through digital channels.

A few weeks ago I had a catch-up call with the Ukrainian team, which has relocated. The staff are spread along the towns and cities in western Ukraine - Lviv, Ternopil, khmelnytskyi, and Vinnytsia. But barring the odd surprise rocket from Russian forces, it’s “business as usual” but where BAU is now about a complete rebuild of the national infrastructure and a shift to a fully auditable digital economy.

When I say they’re highly technical, part of the business is focusing on risk management and resilience/recovery (which they were doing before the war but is obviously critical right now), but actually their “bread and butter” for the preceding 3 years was regulatory compliance and due diligence across financial services and accounting.

A lot of focus on getting Web 3.0 (distributed ledger) right. They were working on a regulatory framework to support the anti-fraud, anti-corruption measures that Z was pushing for and some folks in the Rada oppose.

But that’s for big industries and government, and with the war relying so much on “JFDI” and Russia attacking the cyber foundations of Ukraine, I fully expect Ukraine to adopt Blockchain approaches. Ironically, this does mean the future of financial transactions in Ukraine is going to be a lot cleaner than it used to be, but also a lot more in line with what Russia’s doing.

Because of the staff and office relocations out of Kyiv, of course I know many people who’ve relocated to those four cities in addition to knowing maybe 150 refugees in my UK county (by virtue of being on the committee that coordinates the Homes for Ukraine scheme, housing 2 currently, and supporting a family of 5 before that, and working with NGOs doing humanitarian support on the ground).

What I see OUTSIDE of the work context:

1. The Ukrainian economy and social structure was strikingly similar to Northern England in the early 80s. Poor as hell, a lot of “cash in hand” transactions that the government and tax man had no way of monitoring, but very friendly and their “JFDI” attitude meant you could get anything done quite quickly just through word of mouth and paying cash.

2. I think when people sneer at Ukraine’s GDP, they kind-of overlook the thing that most of Ukraine doesn’t have western style banking and Gubmint monitoring, and a lot of their food is locally produced - so their economic activity outside the big corrupt business structures is IRONICALLY very close to what a lot of Conservatives in America would kill to have. Minimal government interference but “you get what you pay for”. I find it hilarious that people who are fine with “you get what you pay for” for healthcare, fire services and highways maintenance in the USA think it’s “corrupt” when Ukraine has the same mentality toward healthcare, emergency services and highways maintenance. OK, so you can get a QUICKER service from the police too if you pay.

2. Healthcare in Ukraine a year ago put our NHS to shame. The best complaint I’ve had personally from Ukrainians coming here is, “What the f*** do you mean, 10 day lead time for a doctor’s appointment?!” and that was from one who gets an annual ECG check back home and doesn’t even book ahead. Here - 17 week waiting list for an ECG.

3. Culturally, it just is not true that the Russian language was being suppressed and the Russian speaking peoples were being oppressed. Poroshenko made a huge virtue-signalling statement by putting Ukrainian ahead of Russian as the national official language but it really was about as insidious as Wales putting the Welsh language ahead of English on all its road signs. Talk to the average Welsh person and they couldn’t give a rat’s ass what the government said - they speak English AND Welsh, and some places Welsh works better while in others English does. Ukraine is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT.

There’s a Welsh speaking community in Carmarthenshire that’s invited in a whole bunch of Ukrainian refugees in - and the Russian Ukrainians who’ve gone there are telling us how similar the language situation is. In both places, the political promotion of Ukrainian or Welsh over Russian or English has absolutely bugger all impact on how they live their everyday lives, and while England takes a sensible attitude to that, Russia gets all butt-hurt and talks up an invasion.

That’s not strictly true. Our signatures on The Budapest Memorandum and our membership of the UN Security Council mean we didn’t just pledge to respect and protect Ukraine’s separate statehood, we also fixed their borders.

Protect is the operative word. We don't have a defense treaty with Ukraine nor is Ukraine a member of NATO. Is Ukraine any different than Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.? Any country admitted to the UN is de facto recognition of their borders and statehood.

Ukraine signed the Charter of the United Nations as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on 26 June, 1945, and it came into force on 24 October, 1945. Ukraine was among the first countries that signed the United Nations Charter, becoming a founding member of the United Nations among 51 countries.

During the events of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, on 26 August, 1991, the Permanent Representative of the Ukrainian SSR, Hennadiy Udovenko, informed the office of the Secretary General of the United Nations that his permanent mission to the international assembly would officially be designated as representing Ukraine.

During the Ukrainian crisis between 2013 and 2014, the UN adopted Resolution 68/262 on March 27, 2014, entitled Territorial integrity of Ukraine, by the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea. The non-binding resolution, which was supported by 100 United Nations member states, affirmed the General Assembly's commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum.

It’s not in America’s ECONOMIC interests (short and medium term) to defend Ukraine, but a Russian victory would definitely go against America’s long term defense, economic and cultural interests.

I would assert that it is not in our long term interests to become deeply involved in the defense of Ukraine. The entire war could have been avoided if we had not encouraged Ukraine to become a member of NATO, which was involved in training Ukrainian forces for 8 years after the 2014 coup engineered by the US and the EU. We had almost a year to avert the Russian invasion if we had pursued a diplomatic solution. Instead we decided to poke the bear on November 10, 2021 as Russian troops massed on the border. The U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, which included the following:

The United States and Ukraine share a vital national interest in a strong, independent, and democratic Ukraine. Bolstering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against threats to its territorial integrity and deepening Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions are concurrent priorities.

5. The United States remains committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing defense and security reforms and to continuing its robust training and exercises. The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to maximize its status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner to promote interoperability.

Russia considers Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence in much the same way that we used the Monroe Doctrine to prevent outside influence from the Western Hemisphere. And historically, Ukraine has been part of Russia/USSR for hundreds of years. The cultural, linguistic, economic, and societal connections are undeniable.

Russia also is a signatory to both the Budapest Memorandum and Ukraine’s entry into the UN, Russia sits also on the Security Council, and yet Russia insists Ukraine isn’t a legitimate independent country.

When the Soviet Union fell, Ukraine became totally separate from Russia. They have embassies in each other's countries. They issue unique passports. In July 2021 Putin wrote an article, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" describing that relationship from the Russian perspective. It should have prompted an immediate diplomatic response from the West. Russian troops were starting to gather around the Ukrainian borders. Putin did not "insist" that Ukraine was not an independent nation.

The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990's and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine. Whatever ”political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991–2013, Ukraine's budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.

I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia's repeated calls for dialogue.

Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.

The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.

The coup d'état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us.

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.

I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

The above excerpts from the article are key to understanding the Russian perspective, whether you agree with the history as described by Putin or not. As a former diplomat, I can only speculate as to why Blinken did not respond more forcefully to these alarm bells and try to reach a diplomatic solution. Instead, we signed the November Strategic Partnership with Ukraine that was a clear provocation to invite a Russian invasion. We kept pushing for the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

That means Putin’s motives are no different to those that Saddam had when he invaded Kuwait. If Russia didn’t have nukes the UN would’ve green-lit a mobilisation to drive Russia back out of Ukraine the minute Russia stopped spinning its false flags to its own allies, and explained its long term plans.

Since Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council with a veto, there is no way that the UN could have acted. The Russian invasion was political, not economic. There has been an ongoing war for 8 years that was allowed to fester. It was business as usual for Europe and the US after the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

This is another manufactured war that should have never happened. Biden called for regime change and labeled Putin a War criminal. SecDef Austin said the objective was to weaken Russia militarily. We will fight to the last Ukrainian. In the meantime, the global economy is going down the toilet, thanks in part to the ill-thought out economic sanctions. And we are driving Russia and China closer to gather as we enter the new Cold War with no exit in sight. Where this leads to is anybody's guess. We are just at the beginning of this clusterf*ck.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.