>

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
/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.