Ukraine war - which side is winning?

[Anonymous]

It's hard to understand how the war is going for Ukraine. Different news outlets seem to report inconsistent reports. I thought Ukraine was pushing back then yesterday there was a report saying now Russia has control of 1/5 of Ukraine. For those of you following the war, what is your take?

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure that we could describe either side as "winning" since the objectives were never clear from the Russian side.

In the early days of the invasion, media outlets were predicting the extremely short timeline (a few days) where they predicted Kyiv would fall. That...obviously hasn't happened. Are we to then assume that any outcome where Kyiv doesn't fall into the hands of the Russians a win for Ukrainians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure that we could describe either side as "winning" since the objectives were never clear from the Russian side.

In the early days of the invasion, media outlets were predicting the extremely short timeline (a few days) where they predicted Kyiv would fall. That...obviously hasn't happened. Are we to then assume that any outcome where Kyiv doesn't fall into the hands of the Russians a win for Ukrainians?

Yes. Absolutely yes.

I think most observers understand that this will not end in a full military victory for Ukraine, in that they will almost certainly end the war with less territory than they had in 2014 and maybe even less than they had on February 23, 2022. But they will also exist as a potential EU candidate and a full member of Europe in all other sense.

To the degree that Russia's stated objective was regime change, they've lost. To the extent that Russia wanted a show of military force, they've lost. To the extent that Russia wanted to have any operational readiness for the next five years, they've lose. To the extent that Russia wanted a "rally around the flag" phenomenon to carry Russia past Putin's upcoming demise, I suspect they've lost as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure that we could describe either side as "winning" since the objectives were never clear from the Russian side.

In the early days of the invasion, media outlets were predicting the extremely short timeline (a few days) where they predicted Kyiv would fall. That...obviously hasn't happened. Are we to then assume that any outcome where Kyiv doesn't fall into the hands of the Russians a win for Ukrainians?

Yes. Absolutely yes.

I think most observers understand that this will not end in a full military victory for Ukraine, in that they will almost certainly end the war with less territory than they had in 2014 and maybe even less than they had on February 23, 2022. But they will also exist as a potential EU candidate and a full member of Europe in all other sense.

To the degree that Russia's stated objective was regime change, they've lost. To the extent that Russia wanted a show of military force, they've lost. To the extent that Russia wanted to have any operational readiness for the next five years, they've lose. To the extent that Russia wanted a "rally around the flag" phenomenon to carry Russia past Putin's upcoming demise, I suspect they've lost as well.

Your last point, the Russian people are losing patience with the conflict?

[Anonymous]

But would you not agree that it appers to be Russia is winning more battles and gaining more land in eastern Ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But would you not agree that it appers to be Russia is winning more battles and gaining more land in eastern Ukraine?

NP. Yes. But was that the ultimate goal? No. It was a quick, special operation to decapitate.

They didn't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But would you not agree that it appers to be Russia is winning more battles and gaining more land in eastern Ukraine?

NP. Yes. But was that the ultimate goal? No. It was a quick, special operation to decapitate.

They didn't do that.

OP here. Yes, I do agree Russia has not achieved their initial objectives but at the end of the day, it's all about control and Russia seems to gaining control over eastern Ukraine (and paying heavy price for it). I don't see the weapons we are sending now helping Ukraine regaining lost areas do you? US is too slow to act, it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But would you not agree that it appers to be Russia is winning more battles and gaining more land in eastern Ukraine?

NP. Yes. But was that the ultimate goal? No. It was a quick, special operation to decapitate.

They didn't do that.

OP here. Yes, I do agree Russia has not achieved their initial objectives but at the end of the day, it's all about control and Russia seems to gaining control over eastern Ukraine (and paying heavy price for it). I don't see the weapons we are sending now helping Ukraine regaining lost areas do you? US is too slow to act, it seems.

Wasn't much of the area that looks to soon be firmly under Russian control very much under Russian control before February? It seems possible that when fighting eases Russia will have taken Mariupol and little else that wasn't very much under its thumb already.

Or am I incorrect?

[Anonymous]

I think this is a stunning loss for Russia. I do not think that Ukraine will concede any territory. Not when they still have willing fighters and the world willing to arm them. And I think that this war has decimated the Russian war machine and also destroyed its economy for the long term. The only countries who will be trading with Russia in a few years will be other countries like China that should be next on our list to cut off from world trade anyway.

This invasion was a very bad mistake from Russia. Hopefully China is watching closely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But would you not agree that it appers to be Russia is winning more battles and gaining more land in eastern Ukraine?

They are fighting for small villages and local cities instead of large swaths of territory and the capital. Ukraine is also starting to go on the offensive in the south. Ukrainian politicians can't sign a peace treaty that give up land, so I'd expect this to end up as a stalemate. Maybe they'll be a ceasefire if the US and Nato pressure Ukraine, but right now the Russian Army is being bled, so I doubt that happens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But would you not agree that it appers to be Russia is winning more battles and gaining more land in eastern Ukraine?

NP. Yes. But was that the ultimate goal? No. It was a quick, special operation to decapitate.

They didn't do that.

OP here. Yes, I do agree Russia has not achieved their initial objectives but at the end of the day, it's all about control and Russia seems to gaining control over eastern Ukraine (and paying heavy price for it). I don't see the weapons we are sending now helping Ukraine regaining lost areas do you? US is too slow to act, it seems.

Wasn't much of the area that looks to soon be firmly under Russian control very much under Russian control before February? It seems possible that when fighting eases Russia will have taken Mariupol and little else that wasn't very much under its thumb already.

Or am I incorrect?

Right now, they've secured the water supply to Crimea which was a major objective, but it looks like they may lose that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure that we could describe either side as "winning" since the objectives were never clear from the Russian side.

In the early days of the invasion, media outlets were predicting the extremely short timeline (a few days) where they predicted Kyiv would fall. That...obviously hasn't happened. Are we to then assume that any outcome where Kyiv doesn't fall into the hands of the Russians a win for Ukrainians?

Yes. Absolutely yes.

I think most observers understand that this will not end in a full military victory for Ukraine, in that they will almost certainly end the war with less territory than they had in 2014 and maybe even less than they had on February 23, 2022. But they will also exist as a potential EU candidate and a full member of Europe in all other sense.

To the degree that Russia's stated objective was regime change, they've lost. To the extent that Russia wanted a show of military force, they've lost. To the extent that Russia wanted to have any operational readiness for the next five years, they've lose. To the extent that Russia wanted a "rally around the flag" phenomenon to carry Russia past Putin's upcoming demise, I suspect they've lost as well.

I doubt that

[Anonymous]

It is pretty obvious from following Telegraph that Russia is doing much better than US politicians and media are claiming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But would you not agree that it appers to be Russia is winning more battles and gaining more land in eastern Ukraine?

NP. Yes. But was that the ultimate goal? No. It was a quick, special operation to decapitate.

They didn't do that.

OP here. Yes, I do agree Russia has not achieved their initial objectives but at the end of the day, it's all about control and Russia seems to gaining control over eastern Ukraine (and paying heavy price for it). I don't see the weapons we are sending now helping Ukraine regaining lost areas do you? US is too slow to act, it seems.

Wasn't much of the area that looks to soon be firmly under Russian control very much under Russian control before February? It seems possible that when fighting eases Russia will have taken Mariupol and little else that wasn't very much under its thumb already.

Or am I incorrect?

Well, sort of. Excluding Crimea, Russia controlled parts of two regions but did not fully control either of the two regions. Also, "control" is kind of a nuanced discussion here. The areas were wildly depopulated after the 2014 war, with millions seeking IDP status in other parts of Ukraine. Each had its own corrupt local government, but those two corrupt local governments were not on great terms with one another. So, Russia "controlled' two depopulated areas being run by Russian-backed criminals. It wasn't exactly a winning proposition for them.

Now they control most/all of those two regions, as well as having leveled a major Ukrainian city (Mariupol) and occupying others (Kherson, Melitopol). However, they are facing insurgencies in all occupied areas. So, yes, Russia "controls" more land but they're also facing a significant challenge in keeping those against both a determined Ukrainian assault with Western weaponry and insurgencies inside the occupied areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a stunning loss for Russia. I do not think that Ukraine will concede any territory. Not when they still have willing fighters and the world willing to arm them. And I think that this war has decimated the Russian war machine and also destroyed its economy for the long term. The only countries who will be trading with Russia in a few years will be other countries like China that should be next on our list to cut off from world trade anyway.

This invasion was a very bad mistake from Russia. Hopefully China is watching closely.

I too believe Ukraine will fight until there's no more soliders left. My biggest concern, however, is not Ukraine's resolve, it's whether west's unity and willingness to provide weapons will last. We are already beginning to see fractures - France and Germany in particular. This plays into Putin's calculus on how the war will play out. Even here in US, Ukraine is no longer evening news headlines. West has very short memories.