comment: >
  
  I don't have an account to that page, but the title suggests the data is from 2020?  If that is the case, I'm not sure how it is relevant to what you said earlier which is that Germany has "already reviewed its position toward Ukrain and its diplomatic/economic relations with Russia".  I assumed you meant this has happened within the past few months, not years ago.  Everyone has reviewed their position with Ukraine and Russia since 2020...
  Joining a defensive alliance isn't exactly what I'd call a diplomatic escalation.  And of course you mentioned language which is one of the things Russia cited as reasons for their invasion.  Also, Russia hasn't invaded Sweden or Finland for their interest in joining NATO.  Why is Ukraine special?  And how about those Baltic states that already joined NATO?  Why did Russia allow that to happen?  At least in my cynical view, the Russian logic is much the same as to why the US cared when Iraq invaded Kuwait but don't care when an African nations fall into war, because they have resources worth being interested in.  Ukraine has plenty of that sweet natural gas and access to the Black Sea that Russia hearts.
context: 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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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 would like to change your view from this opinion to "no opinion."
  And my argument is why bother having a position on this issue? What does having this view serve. Is there a good reason to go around with this view rather than take a "wait and see" approach?
  You can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one >
  
  You're right on this, but this is also true of most things in the world that don't directly impact you.  For instance, will my Buffalo Bills win the Super Bowl?  I've done a lot of hand wringing over that question for years when I could just sit back and see what happens.
  All I can say is that I have a lot of interest in foreign affairs and I also have an interest in history as well.  Usually I just read history, but now we're living in history, seeing it happen right in front of our eyes.  It is interesting to think about what people were thinking back in the midst of WWII.  To them, D-Day's outcome wasn't obvious even though many history books now say that the forces put out on that day made victory pretty much a forgone conclusion.  They may be right as well that D-Day had an inevitable outcome even if not everyone could see what that outcome would be at the time.
  The same is true for us right now most likely.  10 years from now it'll seem obvious how this war was going to turn out, yet in the moment it is hard to know what will happen.  I guess that is one of the things that drives me to have an opinion on this subject.  I'd like to be able to look back and say that I did have a grasp of the situation at the time and that the outcome didn't surprise me because of it. >
  
  " I'd like to be able to look back and say that I did have a grasp of the situation at the time and that the outcome didn't surprise me because of it."
  Is that the behavior of a good person? >
  
  Yes. It is well known that prediction error and negative surprises are anxiety inducing and can even lead to depression and death. So, it is in a good person's best interest to minimize the probability of that happening, which is what OP is doing. >
  
  Evidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP? >
  
  I think intellectual curiosities are often intellectual curiosities for the reason I outlined --- be it in a bigger picture (where you train your pattern recognition skills) or not. Be it conscious or subconcious. >
  
  The easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction. >
  
  That's empirically not correct. >
  
  I'm unconvinced >
  
  That's fine. >
  
  Who else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles. >
  
  The performance on the field cannot be explained by numbers only and field performance. In Ukraine, they certainly have brand new weapons and equipments, but they remain unprepared (both on war tactics and use of equipment). Russian Army had to go back a little for strategic and tactic matters, to be more performant on other areas but it doesn’t mean Ukraine got any advantage of Russia. In fact, their army is one with the most strict preparations so they are superiors on the field in terms of skills
  Also, West wanted to put Russia in economic difficulties by applying drastic economic sanctions but it appears that Europe is now in a major energy crisis regarding gas and oil. Germany already reviewed its position toward Ukrain and its diplomatic/economic relations with Russia. It means that on a geopolitical scale, Russia gets a progressive advantage by getting rid of the negative opinion of the West that obviously NEED diplomatic relations with Russia more than it needs Ukraine. It means that the conflict will slowly fade because Ukraine will get less support from the west and Russia will be more endurant on a long conflict thanks to its own ressources. >
  
  Can you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?
  If the west's resolves does crumble, Russia would be able to potentially patch things back together enough to gain a victory, but as I stated in my argument, this doesn't seem like something that is a foregone conclusion.  If you were to put odds on the sanctions breaking and Russia essentially rejoining the economic world order in the next 1-2 years assuming this war carries on that long, what percent would you put that at?  I'd put it at 1% or less. >
  
  After stopping imports of gas to punish Russia, Germany is now importing gas again from Russia as it would have had a massive impact on its economy. A choice France (where I live) didn’t make, which lead to social misery and energy shortages (markets are closing because they can’t pay the bills, poverty hits records, households don’t have the money to pay bills that increased for around 100% etc.) it won’t be long before France follows Germany. 
  Regarding the economic world forum, Russia has shown its economic sovereignty and this conflict highlighted various economic partners it has on the international scene. Most of the countries of the OPEP like Iran and countries from Latin America and Africa are open to business and diplomatic relations with Russia. In fact, the economic forum is absolutely not essential for their economic or political viability as the west is losing its popularity both in economic shares and political positions on the international scene. There is a general will to get to a multipolar world by erasing the influence of US and Europe of the international scene. I can assure you that Russia don’t need West that much… pretty much the opposite actually since Europe depends on imports in terms of energy and FOOD !
  Ukraine was just the last attempt from the west to destabilise an other geopolitical block formed by the previous unaligned countries. But Russia didn’t blink as they wanted it to, didn’t back off either. Actually Europe didn’t think it would go that far in the escalation of stupidity from west countries. This is just a global recalibration of the world order. We went from a bipolar world (US and USSR), to a multipolar one (UN), to another form of bipolar world (north and south, rich and poors) to another organisation of the global scene. >
  
  I don't see where Germany is importing gas from Russia.  From my Google searches, I see that Germany is decreasing dependence on Russian gas and plans on being off it fully by 2024.
  I'm also not sure where you're seeing that Russia doesn't need the West.  Their natural gas pipelines almost all go directly to Europe and the vast majority of their oil used to make a quick turnaround selling there rather than having to sail for nearly a month to get to China or India which is what is leading to their lack of ships and needing to depend on European tankers.  Not to mention the technology used in their energy and military sectors.  Iran isn't exactly in a great political or economic situation right now as they may well face political collapse before this war ends.
  Ukraine wasn't something the west started.  Russia couldn't be destabilized by Ukraine if they just hadn't invaded.  They could even end the West's attempt to destabilize them if they pulled out of Ukraine. >
  
  I don't want to bicker over you telling me not to trust communication while stating that you're data is based on the exact same communication you said not to trust.  I just want some evidence of the claims you are making.  I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I want to look at the evidence myself.  I tried finding it and don't see it out there.
  Of course Europe used to import tons of Russian goods include gas and oil.  I don't question that.  I question if it is still happening.  I would not be at all surprised if the public news is accurate because there is an economic war being fought between Europe and Russia with both sides engaging in it.  No reason to believe that there is a whole lot of trade happening at all right now.
  The real meaning of NATO was definitely in question prior to this war.  I honestly thought it was entirely antiquated and could go away and probably would have eventually if Russia had just let it die.  Instead they did this war and gave a whole new purpose not only to NATO, but to the EU, and even ties between the US, EU, and Asian nations.  It is crazy how much purpose this war has given to political and military alliances that seemed to be aimless before this.  Russia definitely miscalculated badly in this aspect as doing nothing would have achieved their goals but launching this war entirely blew up in their face.
  Ukraine could have avoided this war by refusing to be a sovereign nation and allowing themselves to be a puppet of Russia like Belarus.  Just because this would have allowed them to avoid the war doesn't mean it is a decision they should make.  I'm not going to argue with you about whether they should have pursued closer relations with the EU even to the point of wanting to join NATO, but I will say that if you respect the sovereignty of a nation, then they are allowed to make friends with the people they want to be friends with.