What does a Ukrainian WIN look like?

[WarGamer]

How does the global public define a WIN?

More importantly, how would the UKRAINIANS define a win?

Even in strictly military parlance, there are different combinations of condition to equal a WIN.

WW2 ended with total victory, meaning Germany was defeated militarily, meaning they had no ability to project themselves as a threat in the near future. Their gov't and leadership was pulled from the ground like weeds and the people had no ability to feed or take care of themselves. And the victorious army held the LAND.

Afghanistan (2021) ended in a more vague situation. The Taliban held the LAND, toppled the gov't, but never defeated the US military, just made us too tired to stay.

How does the war in Ukraine END? How do Russia and Ukraine define winning?

Is it a WIN for Ukraine if at the end of the conflict they are holding less square mileage of land?

Will one side be stuck with a Pyrrhic victory?





If this was WW2, I'd say Ukraine would have to counter-attack and push the Russians out of the country with offensive operations.

But will that happen? What are the Ukrainians playing for? Inflict maximum pain on the Russians to "teach them a lesson"?

I'd sure like to know... are casualty levels indicative of a victory? Is 50k civilian casualties a win but 200k is a loss? Or are losses not definitive of a victory?



And this all leads to... how WILL this end?

And let's try to stick with reasonable outcomes. Some ideas are unreasonable like Russia being crushed like Germany post WW1 and paying reparations, etc... or US/NATO kicking Russian armies back over the border.

[carpetbagger]

1. They survive, mostly intact, with Western protection.

Considering Putin's expectations, and frankly everyone's, they win even if they make some concessions. Look at the Weller/Cambridge plan floated this week. That's a win.

[WarGamer]

4. Yeah, I think so, too.

If Zelenskyy is still leader, an application to the EU is processing... and there are security promises, I'd call that a win.

Question is... do you negotiate it NOW or wait until 25k Russian soldiers are dead AND 100k civilians are dead?

Wouldn't negotiations NOW be better? Before the Russians kill more people and blow more shit up?

[Wounded Bear]

8. It takes two to tango. Russia does not appear to be negotiating in good faith...

Yes, now would be much better if it involves a cessation of hostilities, but it looks like Putin wants to talk while he continues to destroy the country and kill the citizens of Ukraine. Any serious negotiations should start with a real armistice.

[WarGamer]

14. definitely. A country-wide cease-fire first

[Tomconroy]

2. If the Ukranians are going to win they have to consistently go

on the offensive in a sustained way. The fact that they haven't yet done so around Kyiv where the Russians are trying to regroup I find to be concerning.

[WarGamer]

5. Good point.

Counter attacking would require manpower, morale and artillery. Air supremacy wouldn't hurt, either.

[RKP5637]

3. IMO Putin's bluff needs to be called and a no flyover zone established. This is feeling so much

like when JFK called Nikita Khrushchev's bluff on Cuba.

[WarGamer]

6. You mean a US/NATO Combat Air Patrol, AKA shooting down Russian jets.

Don't like it.

[Tomconroy]

7. I think the alternative is to have Russians endlessly toss

dumb munitions into Ukraine cities.

[RKP5637]

9. Not exactly ... get the planes in the hands of the Ukrainians that Poland was going to send.

From what I understand the Ukrainian pilots are very familiar with them. Putin reminds me of the schoolyard bully who persists and persists.

[TygrBright]

10. Zelensky and his military will define their victory conditions.

They may choose to take advice from strategists elsewhere in the world, but only they can define it.

I can't read their minds, but if I were in that meeting I would imagine victory conditions would include some or all of the following:

* No Russian military remaining within the borders of Ukraine status ante (that is, February 23rd.)

* The validly-elected representatives of Ukraine in control of all government functions.

* Ukrainian military armed and functional and deployed with sufficient strength to maintain a continuing effective defense.

* Russian commitment to peace negotiations under the aegis of the UN, to take place in neutral territory and produce a binding non-aggression agreement between the two nations.

Lots of other specifications are possible, but those four should be sufficient for Ukraine's neighbors and well-wishers to commit resources and assistance in rebuilding and repatriating refugees.

speculatively,
Bright

[Sancho]

11. Moscow surrenders...

[Javaman]

12. The occupied's job is not to win

But instead, their job is not to lose.

[Ohio Joe]

16. +1

Really, it’s all they can do.

[Wingus Dingus]

21. Yep.

[roamer65]

13. If Putler doesn't withdraw from ALL Ukrainian territory, don't stop Ukraine.

Start heading into Belarus and Russia.

That will force him to the table for surrender negotiations.

[NewHendoLib]

15. Putin gone, Russia withdraws, Ukraine can start to rebuild

This is a world order gut check moment.

China needs to separate themselves from Russia

Yes, this may be a pipe dream, but one can hope

[WarGamer]

17. Yeah my dream is a moderate Euro-leaning leader

to lead them into the future...

But I don't think that'll happen.

[Mr.Bill]

18. I fear we are coming into an era where

these kinds of wars can and will pop up more frequently. This can happen as long as there are nuclear weapons. We are leaving an era when nuclear weapons and MAD prevented major wars. But we are moving into an era where the threat of them facilitates wars like this.

The big Kahuna is ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and I don't see how that happens.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. A win for Ukraine is one where they maintain their independence and become part of the EU

Putin being tried for war crimes/removed from power would be nice to have on top of that.

[tirebiter]

20. Stalemate