How Does the War in Ukraine End?

**Fair warning: I don’t usually call mods but if you come in here crying about Trump I’m gonna report you over to them for trying to derail the thread. This has nothing to do with Trump. In fact, for the sake of argument, this discussion assumes the stalled US aid package to Ukraine passes soon and Biden wins the 2024 election. So take your Trump obsession elsewhere, this is meant to be an adult discussion.**

First, let’s put the aid Ukraine has been receiving into perspective. Over 2 years, they've received about $114 billion in international military aid. (The source is in Euros, I converted to USD; only part of each bar is military aid. You’ll see larger numbers quoted in the media because they do poor research and call every blanket sent to an orphanage “military aid.”) That amounts to $57 billion per year.

Ukraine’s own military expenditures were about $44 billion in 2022 and $49 billion in 2023, averaging $46.5 billion per year. So total annual expenditures for Ukraine’s war effort come to about $104 billion per year.

Now, let’s do a comparison on another relatively modern war. What did the US spend on the Iraq War? Estimates vary wildly depending on the agenda of the “researchers” but a middle-of-the-road estimate is a recent study putting the total cost at $1.1 trillion. That doesn't include humanitarian aid, infrastructure rebuilding and all that. That was over 9 years, but you also have to factor in inflation because this was back in the 00s. It gets complicated because each year’s change to today’s dollars is different, but to simplify let’s put the $1.1T in 2005 dollars and convert it to 2023 dollars. That puts the cost at $1.72 trillion, spread over 9 years. So total annual expenditures for America’s war effort was about $191B per year. And that's not even counting what the UK spent, which would make the following comparison even worse:

So we’re having Ukraine fight a major power like Russia on basically half the annual military budget the US spent to fight Iraq. And we were really only fighting the government and Iraqi military in the first year. And Iraq was largely degraded as a military power after their war with Iran in the 80s and the Gulf War in 1991 and never recovered.

Now this is still overly-simplistic because a defensive war is different than an offensive war and they're in different environments and different doctrines. The U.S. war against Iraq was offensive in the first year. After that it was largely counterterrorism and counterinsurgency ops, which are a mix of offense and defense. But that actually adds to my case. You get the picture, and that brings up my main point here:

Western leaders always say, when asked what victory looks like, that it’s up to Ukraine to say what victory looks like. What does Ukraine say? Ukraine’s position is that victory will be driving the Russians out of every last inch of Ukraine, including Crimea.

To do that, Ukraine will need to wage an offensive war. Against the Russians, in what are now essentially dug-in and staunchly-defended functionally Russian territories (I'm not saying they belong to Russia.) On half the annual military budget the U.S. spent waging an offensive war against the lesser power of Iraq for a year and then mostly asymmetrical warfare after that. And keep in mind most people consider the US effort in Iraq a failure.

The other day, I characterized the West’s support to Ukraine as “dribbling” military aid in and that really pissed someone off. But no matter what semantic games you want to play over exactly what word applies to it, clearly we are not helping them enough, not even close, if the goal here is for them to win, which by their definition is retaking all of their territory.

That is an offensive operation and our aid has barely allowed them to sustain their defensive line. Before the recent funding stall and Russian advances, when aid was flowing freely, the front lines were essentially a stalemate for over a year. Ukraine’s counteroffensive last year was a flat-out failure.

But Western leaders have also repeatedly said we can’t really do much more because it will provoke Putin and he’ll attack a NATO country and it’ll be WW3. Connect those two concepts in your mind.

Clearly our current strategy and the amount and pace of aid we’re sending is not enough for Ukraine to win. Sanctions have been completely ineffective. It’s not crippling Russia to the point where Putin is going to be overthrown. And our leaders insist we can’t escalate.

So then what's the endgame?

"Until we win" is not a strategy. Talking about how evil Putin is or the bravery of the Ukrainian soldiers doesn't retake territory.

Those of you that are supportive of the West’s current strategy, where do you see this leading? How will victory be achieved with our current strategy?

**And please, spare me the intellectually weak and fake accusations that this post is supportive of Putin. A lot of what’s been labeled “support for Putin” here the last 2 years has gone on to be said by the Western media a few months later and eventually admitted by Western leaders. Are they all supporting Putin too? I do not think Russia should just be allowed to take Ukraine. This isn't about what I think. I'm literally just presenting information and asking how you think it leads to Ukraine retaking all their territory. It doesn't look to me like it does.

If anyone wants to know what I think, just yesterday I saw the Biden administration's national security advisor talking about what an accomplishment it was that Ukraine still existed at all and that they retook some of their territory that they lost. It sounded to me like the early stages of pushing Ukraine to a negotiated peace with Russia controlling the southeast provinces because realistic military analysis is that Ukraine won't be able to take those territories back without direct NATO help, and with Ukraine taking solace in the fact it could've been a whole lot worse. Funnily enough, that's exactly what I predicted in my first thread on the war 2 years ago.**

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I think there will be many dead people on both sides, Russia will eventually make an agreement with Ukraine to get some land, and the war will end. The end result is many politicians and MIC leaders will get filthy rich, Ukraine will go back to being the money laundering epicenter that it is, and Russia will saber rattle every now and then to remain relevant.

Or Russia will blow us all up with nukes, either one is acceptable.

I imagine Russia keeps Crimea and even gets an eastern sliver for a land bridge.

What I think is the wildcards are, Ukraine having to demilitarize, assurances they don’t join the EU or NATO.

Now, the question many will ask was this worth it.

I imagine many in the west will answer that based off of the support they gave. But ultimately I think it will be an answer for Ukraine to give given they sacrificed blood. Was it worth it for them to keep most of their country? Only for them to answer IMO. It certainly came at a heavy cost.

There is no way Ukraine gets that land back.
No amount of money is going to change that fact.
You can’t just doing nothing and let Russia build up their defenses for 8 years then expect to push them out.
They should have gone all in immediately.
Giving Ukraine money and weapons is only prolonging their inevitable losses.
It’s an exercise in futility.
Better to save their troops and whatever money and weapons for the next time Russia comes for more.
Zelenskyy needs to make a deal before he goes to rehab for that nasty coke problem he’s got.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Meanwhile, documentary evidence appeared that the first Abrams tank was destroyed. Until this point, Biden had prohibited the use of Abrams in Ukraine out of fear that they would be burned, as was the case with Leopards and Challengers, and this would cause reputational losses. Abrams sat in the rear. But the first one went.



vk.com...

In my opinion, the war ends when we finally all get our nose out of other people's business.

All we're doing is dragging everything out causing more and more death, while pissing more and more people off.

Essentially we're just lighting money on fire and casting bodies into the firepit because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy over Russia being bad dictator man.

Until we stop this facade of caring about Ukraine for reasons other than our own self interest(s), it will continue.

Plot twist:

Justin Trudeau on Monday said “Russia must win the war”

a reply to: YourFaceAgain


Ummm...the Ukraine conflict ends...when the Russian military has accomplished all of it's objectives in the SMO...

President Putin outlined the objectives a number of years ago...

I for one listened to what he had to say...








YouSir

Even the more Conservative estimates of Russian casualties are greater than the USSR suffered in Afghanistan. (With USSR having a much larger population and military).

Russia has also taken a major economic hit from the war.

How long the war last seems more to do with Russian domestic politics than what happens at the front.

I suspect crimea is a lost cause but I don't see Ukraine at the moment being willing to surrender its eastern provinces, if for no other reason than its obvious Putin cant be trusted anyway and so would just postpone further conflict.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: YourFaceAgain


Ummm...the Ukraine conflict ends...when the Russian military has accomplished all of it's objectives in the SMO...

President Putin outlined the objectives a number of years ago...

I for one listened to what he had to say...

YouSir

He also said he wasn't going to invade Ukraine.

But sure go with what he said.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: YourFaceAgain


Ummm...the Ukraine conflict ends...when the Russian military has accomplished all of it's objectives in the SMO...

President Putin outlined the objectives a number of years ago...

I for one listened to what he had to say...

YouSir

He has said a lot of things. Picking and choosing which ones were acurrate when they suit your personal beliefs seems rather arbitrary.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise


I suspect crimea is a lost cause but I don't see Ukraine at the moment being willing to surrender its eastern provinces, if for no other reason than its obvious Putin cant be trusted anyway and so would just postpone further conflict.

I don't see that happening at the moment either. It just looks like that's where this is headed and I don't see a way to avoid it without direct NATO involvement, which nobody wants.

extended stalemate, just what the powers that be want I think.

eventually ukraine will try to settle losing crimea and those 2 eastern sections simply because they run out of bodies to feed into the grinder.

that said while russia will claim victory, it ends russia in many ways, a lost generation when they were already dying out demographically, the image of the tough russian military is shattered, politically they are isolated having to negotiate from a position of weakness. India and china are helping because they are getting an awesome deal, not that they are best buds with russia.

I have gotten on well with every russian I have met, awesome people in many many ways it saddens me to see the direction they are going.

Ukraine sorry was always going to be a third world snip hole, good tough people but a hopelessly corrupt govt, it actually makes me feel better about americas leadership.

eta: once the shooting stops the aid will disapear and ukraine is screwed at that point.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: YourFaceAgain


Ummm...the Ukraine conflict ends...when the Russian military has accomplished all of it's objectives in the SMO...

President Putin outlined the objectives a number of years ago...

I for one listened to what he had to say...

YouSir

He has said a lot of things.

Picking and choosing which ones were acurrate when they suit your personal beliefs seems rather arbitrary.

Ummm...I'm sorry...but your response is nonsensical...and has absolutely nothing to do with what I stated...


Obviously...your entire OP...can be summed up with...

Picking and choosing which ones were acurrate when they suit your personal beliefs seems rather arbitrary.

Why ask for others to respond to your diatribe...when your opining is only a measure of...picking and choosing to support your personal belief system...

Seems rather arbitrary...



YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

I'm sure you have given this answer before but I will ask for myself so I can better understand your stance on this matter.
If you don't mind answering, what country do you stay?

originally posted by: dothedew
In my opinion, the war ends when we finally all get our nose out of other people's business.

.......

Until we stop this facade of caring about Ukraine for reasons other than our own self interest(s), it will continue.

Except that it IS our business and it IS in our self interest.

We, along with the UK, Ukraine, and Russia agreed to recognize Ukraine's borders as they existed in 1991 in return for Ukraine getting rid of 1,900 or so nuclear weapons and strategic delivery systems. Part of the bargain was that the US and the UK would support Ukraine in resisting what everyone thought would probably be the Russians ignoring that agreement--short of sending US and UK troops into direct military conflict with Russian troops. That's what we're doing now and it's why we've avoided giving Ukraine enough military assistance to threaten Russia on its own turf. We're abiding by the agreement we made back then. That was very much in our self interest and makes it our business.

If we just let the Russians do whatever they want, and ignore our promises, they certainly will make Ukraine part of their expanding empire in fairly short order. If we walk away from NATO and our Article 5 commitment probably 3 or 4 European nations will decide they have to become nuclear powers to be able to deter Russia. And those nuclear weapons wouldn't be under a central command authority the way they are now in NATO. Every nation would make independent decisions on when and how they would be used. They're already talking about that based simply on Trump's statement that he would encourage Russia to do "whatever they want" to NATO countries that didn't spend enough on their own defense. And then Japan and South Korea and maybe Australia will make the same calculations if they decide our promises don't mean squat. Suddenly, the number of nuclear weapons in the world will increase, along with the probability that some of them will be used. That way leads to a worldwide nuclear arms race and we actually have the most to lose in that scenario. Maintaining a semi-monopoly on nuclear deterrent forces over the years via treaties with our allies has been very much in our self interest.

The days when the US interests stopped at the ocean's edge ended when the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and as pleasant as it is to fantasize about going back to simpler days, that can't actually happen.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Except that it IS our business and it IS in our self interest.

No, it is not.


The only interests in Ukraine come from the guy in the white house, nulin, graham, kerry, mccain and romney. Plotiticians.


Anyone else claiming interest for the US is only serving to add to those individuals bottom lines.

originally posted by: YouSir


Ummm...I'm sorry...but your response is nonsensical...and has absolutely nothing to do with what I stated...


Obviously...your entire OP...can be summed up with...

Picking and choosing which ones were acurrate when they suit your personal beliefs seems rather arbitrary.

Why ask for others to respond to your diatribe...when your opining is only a measure of...picking and choosing to support your personal belief system...

Seems rather arbitrary...

YouSir

Ummm... were the budget figures and 4th grade math in my OP over your head? Skipping those verifiable facts are the only way you can think my OP is just "picking and choosing to support my personal belief system."

YouSir... have suffered a serious decline in the quality of your posts as of late.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I wouldn’t sweat it dude. You had a fair OP that had a lot of information most people could agree on. The questions were good and you did all of that without being hyperbolic.

Solid thread 👍

Just to inform fellows here , quite many Bilateral Security Agreements signed last few Months , and more to be signed soon.


EXPLAINER-What are the security deals Ukraine is discussing with allies?


Slava Ukraini!