Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[mike]

So at this point, what is everybody's best guesses as to how the conflict will end? I can't really wrap my mind around the mess.

[Ken]

So at this point, what is everybody's best guesses as to how the conflict will end? I can't really wrap my mind around the mess.

I don't have any grand insight. No more than anyone else.

But my guess would be that it will eventually settle into some sort of frozen conflict similar to the partition of Korea and the DMV without any sort of permanent peace agreement or de-arming. Basically both sides armed to the teeth and facing each other. That point might take another year or two to reach. But it is inevitable because modern warfare is far too expensive to keep up forever. But not before 2025 or 2026. There doesn't seem to be any motivation on the part of Russia to wind things down anytime soon and they are completely in the driver's seat when it comes to this conflict. How long can Russia keep this up? Who knows. But at least another year or two.

And then the frozen conflict might last for generations. The partition of Germany lasted 34 years. And the partition of Korea has lasted over 70 years with no end in sight. It will likely take a completely new government in Russia to reach any sort of actual peace agreement as opposed to a simple armistice of the sort that we have in Korea.

The conflict over the past year or so, which is mostly just small adjustments in the front lines, is more or less a sorting out of where the final armistice line will be. Probably not very different from where it is now. Neither side is going to willingly give up any territory that it has taken by force or defended in the objective of a peace agreement. Not absent a complete collapse and defeat. Not Russia and certainly not Ukraine.

[Soloist]

So at this point, what is everybody's best guesses as to how the conflict will end? I can't really wrap my mind around the mess.

This is very situational on what the US does, but I’m guessing the political will to declare war is not there.

I’m guessing Ukraine will be collapsing in under a year without troops on the ground.

Ukraine will collapse and NATO will do nothing, EU will take an active role and basically form a wall with their troops to stop further Russian aggression. I’d predict roughly half of Ukraine would be Russian controlled. There will be insurgents raiding in Russian controlled with the current president leading them indirectly from another nation. Calls will be made to take back/free Ukraine but nothing overly will change.
Further down the road with lack of NATO/US inaction with Ukraine, China might move at that point.
Russian aggression will take a back burner in the US mind as China takes Taiwan. India and China will continue to heat up.
US will talk big talk but might decline to engage China directly. Russian aggression will result in another unaligned nation being attacked and eventually a spark possibly Taiwan, will start WW3.

[Josh]

Europe has been embroiled in wars for as far back as we have any history. Anabaptists periodically found themselves on the wrong side of things, since they refused to fight, which led them needing to leave both what is now Poland (Prussia back then) and what is now Ukraine (Russia back then)*.

There is no reason to believe this will change, and America doesn’t seem very good anymore at guaranteeing peace just because a country is an American client state. Ukraine’s safety is looking about as well assured as South Vietnam’s.

* The area Russian Mennonites and Hutterites lived in is now once again occupied by the Russian Federation.

[Neto]

If Russia is seen to have become weakened enough, it is possible that some of the people groups that are oppressed by them will try to gain their own freedom, and control of their own traditional lands. It could also be that Muslim extremest groups will gain more following there, which could create more of the same sort of trouble as they have had in these last days. In other words, I have no idea, and it's anyone's guess. But it doesn't look good for Ukraine.

[Ken]

Europe has been embroiled in wars for as far back as we have any history. Anabaptists periodically found themselves on the wrong side of things, since they refused to fight, which led them needing to leave both what is now Poland (Prussia back then) and what is now Ukraine (Russia back then)*.

There is no reason to believe this will change, and America doesn’t seem very good anymore at guaranteeing peace just because a country is an American client state. Ukraine’s safety is looking about as well assured as South Vietnam’s.

* The area Russian Mennonites and Hutterites lived in is now once again occupied by the Russian Federation.

The only NATO state that has been attacked since the formation of NATO in 1949 has been the UK with the Falklands War in 1982. And that did not go well for Argentina. That is a pretty successful run. It has been 75 years and counting. There have been colonial wars and decolonization in Africa and Asia. But no wars on NATO territory on the European continent.

The shorthand reason for the existence of NATO from the point of view of Western Europe has been: (1) to keep the Americans in, (2) the Germans down, and (3) the Russians out. It has been successful on all three points.

[Josh]

If Russia is seen to have become weakened enough, it is possible that some of the people groups that are oppressed by them will try to gain their own freedom, and control of their own traditional lands. It could also be that Muslim extremest groups will gain more following there, which could create more of the same sort of trouble as they have had in these last days. In other words, I have no idea, and it's anyone's guess. But it doesn't look good for Ukraine.

In reality, the exact opposite has happened. Putin and United Russia have been very dedicated to “multiculturalism” (often at the expense of ethnic Russians), encouraging high levels of foreign migration and also interior migration from areas like Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. The net result is that Chechnya and Dagestan are really more integrated into the “Russian Federation” than ever before, including its military structure.

Russia doesn’t seem to be “weakened” to me. If anything, they’ve proven they can invade a country next to NATO and NATO/the EU/the U.S. seem basically impotent to do anything about it.

[Ken]

If Russia is seen to have become weakened enough, it is possible that some of the people groups that are oppressed by them will try to gain their own freedom, and control of their own traditional lands. It could also be that Muslim extremest groups will gain more following there, which could create more of the same sort of trouble as they have had in these last days. In other words, I have no idea, and it's anyone's guess. But it doesn't look good for Ukraine.

In reality, the exact opposite has happened. Putin and United Russia have been very dedicated to “multiculturalism” (often at the expense of ethnic Russians), encouraging high levels of foreign migration and also interior migration from areas like Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. The net result is that Chechnya and Dagestan are really more integrated into the “Russian Federation” than ever before, including its military structure.

Russia doesn’t seem to be “weakened” to me. If anything, they’ve proven they can invade a country next to NATO and NATO/the EU/the U.S. seem basically impotent to do anything about it.

You are assuming that the US actually wants to see a quick end to this war. You should probably be more cynical.

Russia is currently spending 40% of it budget and 10% of its GDP on the war: https://theconversation.com/russias-eco ... win-221333 That is absolutely not sustainable.

It means that Russia's current per-capita GDP of $15,270.71 is actually closer to $13,600 in terms of the domestic economy. Which puts it in the same range as Mexico or Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Essentially this war has turned Russia into Mexico. But a more corrupt version of Mexico with much worse food and beaches. I don't think that is what the Russians aspire to. It is no wonder they have to loot and steal washing machines from Ukraine.

By contrast, the US has a per-capita GDP of $76,329 and currently spends 3.5% of its GDP on the military.

If you want to get real. What the US and NATO are actually doing is bleeding Russia dry in Ukraine while spending very little money and putting no American or NATO lives at risk. If you consider the US and Russia to be adversaries, then the US doing a fabulous job of allowing Russia to destroy itself in Ukraine for very little investment. And most of the money that the US is spending in Ukraine is actually dollars spent at home. The money never leaves the US, it just goes to armament manufacturers who spend it in the US producing arms that get sent to Ukraine. It's basically a make-work project for the US defense industry.

From a ruthless geopolitical perspective, I expect the Pentagon planners would be perfectly happy to let this war go on indefinitely. That's not so great for Ukraine of course. But it certainly advantages the US to keep Russia tied up and wasting all its GDP and youth in Ukraine and grow further isolated with each passing year.

[RZehr]

In other words, "N'interrompez jamais votre ennemi lorsqu'il fait une erreur."

[Ken]

In other words, "N'interrompez jamais votre ennemi lorsqu'il fait une erreur."

Quoting Napoleon? Yes. Although Napoleon's big mistake was invading Russia himself. In winter. The same mistake the Germans made a century+ later. I'm sure NATO and the US have no intention of repeating that mistake.

But from a purely geopolitical perspective, the best then the US and NATO can do is let Russia burn itself out in Ukraine. Until it is a spent force. It takes very little investment to do that.

Same thing the Russians did in Vietnam. For very little investment they got the US to burn itself out in Vietnam for a decade. Which also tore the country apart.

History doesn't repeat itself but it certainly rhymes.