>

I think you'd be surprised how much of the money they are "sending" Ukraine is actually not spent by Ukraine but instead spent for Ukraine.
I'm not even going to respond to whatever in the world you're talking about Ukraine taking Moscow.  I think we're finished here if this is the kinds of responses you're going to provide.
/u/Krenztor (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

A part of me wonders outside of the Russian viewpoint, who actually holds the opinion that their victory is inevitable? Is this a strawman opinion only genuinely shared by a handful of those drinking the kool-aid?
The only person I've heard of that has this opinion is Peter Zeihan as far as I can tell, and lately his opinion has drifted from that original analysis. I think especially at the beginning of the war when Russia had air superiority and were closing in on Kyiv, that may have been the opinion. 
But now? Even Russian media figures have put on the brakes on an inevitable victory. The failures of the Russian military so far, especially in light of Ukrainian counter-offensives, makes a sure victory for them dim every day this war goes on. And not even the Russian propagandists can hide it anymore. >

I'll have to check out Peter Zeihan.  The first video I found of him is titled "This is how Russia will collapse".  I figured he was going to be a super pro-Russian guy if he holds the viewpoint that Russian victory is inevitable.  Or maybe the title is just misleading. >

Yeah, I'm unsure if he's pro-Russia or if he just genuinely believes that Russia has the advantage to win. He's always been of the opinion that they'd win because of their manpower advantage, their willingness to throw them into the meat grinder to attrition the Ukrainians to submission, and they're more familiar with artillery battles because of their experience from WW2.
However, I think he fails to consider morale and especially that Ukraine is fighting a defensive war. The war goals for a victory are much easier to fight for and maintain than the political and economic willpower that's need for Russia to win an offensive war. I think he also underestimates Ukrainian capabilites, which was evidenced by their huge victory in Kharkiv, and their maneuvers to take Kherson.
Peter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers. >

Honestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at.  
Firstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: 

People who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda
People who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda
People who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine
People who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine

Since group 2, the only conceivable group that could actually support Russia's invasion  doesn't really exist except in the extremist fringes in the U.S., people in the west are either pro funding the war in Ukraine indefinitely, or do not support funding the war in Ukraine indefinitely.
___________
Secondly, you mentioned that people think that a Russian victory is a foregone conclusion, but I do not think there is a single, rationale/objective person who thinks this given what we know now:
BEFORE the war in Ukraine, based on intelligence and military exercises, Russia's military appeared to be unmatched besides the U.S.; Russia spent billions of dollars procuring drones, NVGs, and more generally training/modernizing their military forces. 
HOWEVER, we now know that even though Russia spent hundreds of billions of dollars "on their military," most of the money was likely squandered due to corruption, highlighted by the fact Russia has non stop defeats on the battle field. 
Today, most people think that the war in Ukraine is the wests war to lose, not Russias war to win. So you are better off asking: what would the west have to do to lose the war in Ukraine? And I think that answer is when one of the following happens:  

Ukrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)
The U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. 
The West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.

And Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an "inevitable Russian victory" >

Thanks for this response :)  It is very encouraging to hear from someone who can provide this type of analysis and draw similar conclusions as what I have.  I felt like I had a good understanding of the war situation, but do sometimes wonder if I'm just so saturated with pro-Ukrainian info that I'm missing something.  I definitely feel better having read your post! >

It is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment.  Anything could happen in war and politics.  
But those conversations would be based around unpredictable geopolitical events...(i.e. 2024 Trump in the white house, China suddenly giving Russia and endless supply of missiles, etc.) Betting on the unknown to go your way is fundamentally different from suggesting that Russia is guaranteed to win...
Which makes me a bit curious what debate you watched. >

It's a very small channel that hosted the discussion.  They have great coverage of the war with a small bent towards pro Russia, but they are mostly honest about what is happening on the ground.  It was just recently they started posting "Open mic" discussions with chatter like this one.  I tossed spaces into the link to keep it from being censored.  It's around the 1:20 minute mark that one guy makes the statement about Russia already having won the war.
https:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0 >

That is a really interesting point.  That is quite a poster as well!  I had no idea this happened during WWII.
I like to give out at least one Delta per discussion and while some people did make some good points about how attrition might eventually start working harder against Ukraine that it is right now, this is probably the most interesting and convincing points I've heard.  I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the progress of the frontlines and hoping we don't see a repeat of a WWII level rapid march in Ukraine!
Δ >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/shortadamlewis (16∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.
On both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.
Can Putin continue to hold on to power, even as the war becomes increasingly unpopular among ordinary Russians? At the moment, it's clear that Putin has severey cracked down on dissent from oligarchs and anyone inside Russia in a position of influence. As the oligarchs begin to feel financial and economic pressure from the isolation of the Russian economy, that may change. Ironically, any effort Putin makes to de-escalate the conflict may be seen as a sign of weakness, further threatining his political power, so he's sort of backed himself into a corner. If the war becomes sufficiently unpopular, it's possible that rival oligarch elites will organize a palace coup.
Zelensky, on the other hand, is up for re-election 2024. Currently Zelensky is very popular, with a 91% approval rating. But the difficulties of running a political campaign during an ongoing conflict where parts of the country are under foreign occupation still leaves many unknowns and opportunities for political crises to develop. A change in Ukraine's political leadership could have major negative consequences for Ukraine's ability to fight the war.
As time goes on, both sides are going to come under foreign and domestic pressure to make peace, and it's currently difficult to imagine a set of mutually acceptable terms. >

Same goes for Biden being up for re-election and that's assuming he even wants to run again for 2024.  A change there could be major assuming the war keeps going for that long.
There are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be. >

So. First of all, you describe yourself as "pro Ukranian." So am I, but this should not be how you think about who will win the war. Who wins a war is not based on who is correct morally, it's based on who can bring more resources to bear  to take and hold teritory and to kill the enemy. 
The thing is that, it is probable that Russia has a stronger military, they can afford more wounded and dead soldiers, and, subject to western commitments, lose more resources than Ukraine. 
It is a war, not a race, no law of god or man says that Russia has to be done with its conquest by Febuary or by April. And conditions of war are subject to change. The rate of land taken in december in no way indicates the rate at which land is taken in March of next year. >

My point about the rate of land being taken in December was to show that Russia isn't going to finish this war quickly.  That is important because their economic position is going to fall apart over the long run of maybe a year or two.  I'd also ask if Russia would allow full economic collapse even if it meant victory in Ukraine.  This is just a "special military operation" after all.  Is this the hill they are willing to die on?  Would be odd for this to be the thing they risk it all on.  They have to be at least a little concerned that there could be a much larger and more important conflict in the future either with the US, China, or even an unexpected force riding horseback out of Mongolia. >

There isn't evidence that Russia will see an economic collapse. One of the things that the pro ukraine bubble gets wrong is the idea that the west has the ability to fully isolate Russia from the global economy. The problem from our perspective is that Russia can look to the neutral and authoritarian countries to pick up much of the slack. 
What I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are 
 stalemated and locked, and then suddenly a battle is won or lost and forces are advancing and retreating, an army breaks and runs for days, historically speaking.
Ukraine is in a deeply precarius position. Most of its weaponry is supplied by the west, it is losing tons of infrastructure, and most importantly, it's losing soldiers, which the west will not replace. Russia can probably trade death for death with Ukraine, and win. . . The popular press in the west likes to paint Russia as broadly disapproving of this war, but that's only true if Russia loses, if Russia wins, the Russian people will decide it was all worth it, because now they have Ukraine. And I view the odds of a Russian rebellian or coup as low. 
The Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.
I am pro Ukraine, I think making the Ukraine invasion cost Russia as much as possible is good for democratic nations, I favor backing Ukraine right up to the point where doing so would cause WWIII. But Ukraine could easily lose and probably will. I hope I'm wrong. 
But it is most important to view your moral causes factually. >

Definitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!
I guess we'll see on the Russian economic collapse.  I know this isn't a simple thing to analyze, but given that Russia likely went into this war believing it would be short and the backlash would be limited, the fact that this war is protracted and backlash has been unprecedented among anything that ever happened in history, I suspect the Russian economic position is about as bad as it could possibly be this far into the war and it isn't likely to improve until the war is over.  If this war goes on for all of 2023, I suspect by that point their war chest will be entirely depleted and they'll need to start printing money to pay for the war as the US did in WWII.  They can last maybe another 6 months doing that, but beyond that they'll be risking collapse.  All this for a "special military operation".  If China decides they want to bite off a chunk of Russia after that (likely through funding rebellion in the west) Russia would risk complete collapse.
Maybe I'm assuming Putin has some semblance of logic left in him and that he'd choose to lose this war before risking the entire nation, but I could be wrong.
The risk of Ukraine losing the attritional war is definitely real though.  I hope they are taking care of their troops as best as possible since the only way they can outlast Russia is to maintain the force necessary to resist the enemy. >

THis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. 
I find it very impressive Ukraine hasn't lost, their fighting so hard is why we keep giving them weapons, but I also find it difficult to imagine they'll win, because it seems Russia has a larger, better equipped army. The Russian army was certainly highly overrated, but is also probably learning from the first ten months of the war, and is regrouping, recruiting and retraining for  future operations.  
Propaganda is dangerous to the mind, and Reddit is very pro Ukraine. So am I. But there's a difference between believing something is true and wanting it to be true. I want the Ukraine to win, I do not know if it will. I find it far more likely than I used to. >

I'm guessing it would be hard to believe the US would lose in Vietnam and Afghanistan and that the Soviet Union would lose in Afghanistan as well.  It is hard to picture how such things could happen.  But when you step back and ask why those unexpected losses occurred, many of the reasons you'll come up with are mirrored in what is happening in Ukraine today.  A major power, who has many problems at home already, invaded and expected a swift military victory.  Instead they were met with strong resistance from a surprisingly determined enemy.  That enemy got outside help and / or built up an insurgency.  Eventually it became clear that holding onto the land, while still feasible, was more trouble than it was worth so the larger nation left.
The US could still be fighting in Vietnam today.  There is no reason why we HAD to leave.  The Soviet Union could (if they hadn't collapsed) still be fighting in Afghanistan today.  There is no reason they HAD to leave.  If they remained stubborn enough, both of those wars could have continued on forever.  Maybe the US and Soviet Union would have eventually even won.  But they figured out that there is such a steep cost to victory and the benefits of that victory were so small that it wasn't worth it.
Now look at Ukraine.  The land Russia stands to inherit make up less than 1% the size of Russia.  The economic output of that land is maybe 2% of Russian GDP.  Yes they'll make a land bridge to Crimea, but wow-wee, how much does that really matter to Russia in the long run?  They already had their bridge and it has a major port to ship stuff into.  Is Russia REALLY going to fight here for years and year while their economy takes a battering?  They also are in a demographic crisis even prior to this war and now their youth are stuck in trenches or have fled the country.  This isn't making for a good future for the nation.
Putin is the X factor here though.  He's old, maybe even dying, and might believe that his legacy rests on "winning" in Ukraine.  He might be willing to drive Russia into the ground for his ego.  He might be able to push for that infinity war the US and Soviet Union were unwilling to engage in.  At that point, I guess it is possible Russia "wins" even if the victory comes at a cost no sane person would pay. >

It's been less than a year. We stuck it out in vietnam for, something like seven years depending on how you decide when our involvement ramped up. 
What you're describing is certainly possible. But it's a little too early to say it's going to go that way. Did Vietnam and Afghanistan have as much outside help as we are providing Ukraine?  Let's say Russia has a great three months, how's France feeling? That matters. 
I think wait and see is the right attitude, I don't think we can draw conclusions. If I had to bet cash money on backing an ultimate outcome, I don't know how I'd bet. >

I think once this war is done, we'll look back at this moment and wonder why the conclusion of it wasn't super obvious to us.  It feels like 90% of all people now confidently state that when the war began they KNEW Ukraine was going to push back Russia.  I think it is just too embarrassing for people to admit that when this war began, they were blind to the obvious truths in front of them so they'll never admit they totally thought Russia was going blow Ukraine away.  Same with this moment right now.  I bet if we could track everyone who was making public claims about this war right now, by the time this war ends almost all of them will suddenly state that they KNEW at this point in the war exactly what was going to happen even if their public statements at this time don't suggest they had any idea.  
It just ends up feeling so silly that we are living here in the midst of history and are seeing everything going on, but feel so uncertain about what the outcome will be.  But when we look at it all in hindsight several years from now, we'll shake our heads at how we didn't see the outcome as obvious.  Like if Ukraine loses, we'll scratch our heads at how we ever thought such a small nation could hang with Russia for years on end.  If Ukraine wins, we'll wonder how we missed that Russia is an absolute mess, filled to the brim with lies and corruption, headed by a madman, and had the entire world against them, yet we thought they actually had a shot at this thing.  
It'll be weird looking back at these discussions when it is all over and seeing the things we believed (and were probably wrong about).  
To make my statement that is probably wrong, if I had to bet what will happen, I'll stick with the economic collapse of Russia.  In all of history I don't think there has ever been such a concerted effort to non-militarily take down a nation by almost the entire world at the same time.  If Russia somehow stands up against this, I'll be stunned. >

So first, that's then ature of lving through history, things don't seem obvious now because they haven't concluded. But when they conclude, then people say they always knew  this would happen. . .
The thing is it's the western world sanctioning Russia, not the world. India, most of Africa, China, Iran, and other countries will still trade with the Russians hell, I think Europe is still technically buying Russian oil, because the oil market is global. 
I have no idea what's going to happen. I hope that Russia retreats from Ukraine, out of Crimea, too. But they will need the shit kicked out of them to do that. >

When it comes to sanctioning, if the western world sanctions you, you're out the vast majority of all important markets.  Sure you have many others out there, but they mostly want to trade for much more basic products.  Like if you had to fill your house with products only made by the nations Russia trades with, you probably have a lot of nice clothing, but your car is likely pretty sketchy and you won't even have a computer most likely considering Russia practically can't get microchips.
I agree that for Russia to leave Crimea, it is going to take a lot.  It might not even happen regardless of how well Ukraine does.  It would be deeply humiliating for Russia to lose Crimea.  All the rest of Ukraine I think they'd trade right now just to keep Crimea which is pretty funny considering they started the war with Crimea. >

What about a pyrrhic Russian victory?
The odds that Russia annexes some eastern land that is strategic costal/pipeline access with natural gas reserves (and continues to hold Crimea) while causing enough damage to Ukraine and instability to hold off Ukraine joining NATO/EU seems realistic if not probable.
Yes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives. >

Yeah, I think it is possible Russia can achieve that, but they'd need to somehow overcome the impending economic doom scenario.  Like if the west caves on sanctions and/or support of Ukraine, Russia can certainly achieve this kind of victory, but it doesn't feel obvious or even likely that it goes this way.  The west seems very dug in around their economic stance on Russia and I don't see how Russia can hope to continue pouring money into this war for years and years.  When a major power encounters perpetual war like this, they tend to end up being shoved out of the nation entirely, and I don't think there has ever been anything like the worldwide backlash Russia is facing at the same time as being stuck in a quagmire. >


The West has already seized half of Russia's war chest. When sanctions were put into place, $350 billion was frozen by western banks. Clearly Putin had not planned on this happening nor did he anticipate the sanctions or embargo of Russian fossil fuels.

On the contrary, Putin CLEARLY planned for it to be ceased. This was actually pretty good. The west freezes Russian money. Russia refuses to pay debts and defaults on western companies that Russia owes money to. They say "if you want payment, please melt down some of the funds you've frozen".
So Russia had a default without the consequence of default. Because usually default means inability to pay the debts, but in case of Russia it means a lack of desire to pay to someone who froze their funds.
And by doing that, western financial institutions discredited themselves enough to push the Arabic world, China and other countries away from storing their money in the west. They now know that if their politics are not favorable with the west, their money CAN be seized. And there's infrastructure for it.
As for the war. Yes, current day Russian gains are pretty modest, but you win the war by destroying the enemy army, not by gaining land.
If Ukraine wastes too many resources defending places that are hard to defend(like Bahmut), it will eventually wear out. I don't know if Russia is able to wage this war for long. Russia doesn't defend cities that are hard to defend, and Ukraine does. This is a strength, and a weakness.
I don't know who wins in the end, but the conclusion is far from over, that's undeniable >

I really doubt that was Putin's master plan.  Most likely, that money ends up going to Ukraine in the long run.  The entire government budget of Ukraine is only $36 billion so this money would be like funding them for 10 years on Russia's dime.  If that we're his plan, then he's clearly not a financial or military genius.  I doubt he had any expectation that this money would get frozen because it's like you said, as soon as the west does this, it'll scare away business from other non-western nations, especially China who knows they might have the same happen to them if / when they invade Taiwan.  As it turns out though, Putin miscalculated.  Whether it ends up being the doom of him, we'll see.
As far as Ukraine defending Bakhmut, it is also true that Russia keeps pressing into areas that are hard to take like that city.  When Ukraine pushed forward, they attacked small settlements, surrounded the hard to take settlement, and Russia just fled that area instead of fighting.  So that reduced the casualties on both sides.  Hard to say which method is better, but I'm not so sure the war of attrition is necessarily in favor of Russia just because Ukraine is defending Bakhmut since Russian losses are likely just as bad as they stubbornly keep attacking an area that is well fortified and very difficult to seize.  Plus at least for now, the Ukrainian military is larger than Russia's and unfortunately much of Ukraine's military can't even be on the front lines as they have to defend areas of their border like that with Belarus, Kyiv, and other areas near Russia, just in case. >


Most likely, that money ends up going to Ukraine in the long run.  

Doesn't look like it. They had plenty of time to give it to Ukraine. Looks like it's going to be given as debt payment to companies that Russia owes money to. The reason why it's not done now, is because that would look like unfreezing Russian funds. 

If that we're his plan, then he's clearly not a financial or military genius. 

I don't think that was his plan, because he can't predict what Europe is doing. But it doesn't hinder him at all. Recent worsening of American/Saudi relationships is clearly because of that. And this seizure allowed Russia to not pay back debts to Europe.
There will be a destabilization of the global world system, and we'll see more diversity in payment system, banks, alternatives, etc.

Plus at least for now, the Ukrainian military is larger than Russia's

Yes. But Russian reserves are larger than Ukrainian. And it seems like Russia doesn't mind the war going on for ages. Russia released it's federal budget for years 23-25, and they account for the war continuing until this time, and for oil prices being low. So for at least 3 more years there's no reason to think that Russia will run out of missiles, drones, people, money, or anything else.

much of Ukraine's military can't even be on the front lines as they have to defend areas of their border like that with Belarus, Kyiv, and other areas near Russia, just in case.

Russia has a lot of border to defend too, do you think the entire Russian army is in Ukraine now? >

I still think it goes to Ukraine.  The reason they don't just hand it over is due to corruption in Ukraine.  It'll be used to rebuild Ukraine, but the money will be handed out by the west rather than given to Ukraine to spend freely.  Ukraine won't like it, but it's kind of a case where beggars can't be choosers.
Russia may be planning for war to go on that long, but Hitler in 1945 was planning on still pushing the Russians back and retaking all land that was lost.  I think any reasonable person knows the difference between intentions and reality.  The Russian plan isn't reality. >


I still think it goes to Ukraine.  The reason they don't just hand it over is due to corruption in Ukraine

The west is sending a lot of money to Ukraine despite the corruption. But they didn't unfreeze the money and didn't give it to Ukraine.

but Hitler in 1945 was planning on still pushing the Russians back and retaking all land that was lost.

Don't you think that expecting Ukraine to be able to take Moscow, like USSR took Berlin, is a bit ridiculous?
The only way Russia can lose if it decides to withdraw like America did in Vietnam. America withdrew after, what, 10 years? And Russia doesn't currently have a big problem with protestors destroying cities