"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." (1)
Can this war go on for many years at current intensity? No. Can it be sustained past the end of 2023? Maybe, maybe not. Can it continue to "slow burn" - possibly.
1. Russia starts "testing" nukes and a deal is brokered that pisses off both Ukraine and Russia but allows them both to claim "victory", save face and not start a thermonuclear war (this is Henry Kissinger's take); or
2. US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
3. Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
All good, but I would add a more likely senario: A stalemate where Ukraine efectivly regains almost all of its territory, Russia is unable to sustain a meaningful campaign, but Russia continiues limited attacks with missiles and some artilery pokes near the border to avoid lossing face.
...a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia...
Some have forgotten that Putin was originally declared "a Western-friendly replacement". The world would have been a more peaceful place if we hadn't interfered in Russian politics to support Yeltsin and his chosen successor. Russia isn't the only nation in which our choice (??) of leader has led to "blowback", both for the victim nation and for most Americans. We should stop doing this.
> Russia starts "testing" nukes and a deal is brokered that pisses off both Ukraine and Russia but allows them both to claim "victory", save face and not start a thermonuclear war (this is Henry Kissinger's take); or
That seems like a bad precedent - nuclear blackmail and aggression works, you get rewarded with territory/concessions.
It is certainly a possibility, but in a way loss of credibility for US/West.
> US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
I think the monetary help might decrease, but the military help rather not. Sending old weapon stocks don't really produce any economic hit.
> Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
This is very unlikely to happen. Putin might be replaced one way or another, but the replacement won't be particularly friendly to the West. They might be slightly less (or more) antagonistic.
Apart from (1), the rest of your scenarios are unlikely.
Assuming (1) does not happen, there is likely little chance of the West seriously dropping its support for Ukraine. Maybe popular opinion of citizens will increasingly turn against the support, but the governments know very well what kind of message not supporting Ukraine sends to Russia.
And, Putin may well have a health/life issue, but if power passes to another person, it is likely to be someone even more hawkish than Putin. If you follow Russian opinion it seems Putin is seen as rather soft.
3a Although any "Putin replacement" could end the current Russian folly in Ukraine, if only to put a "under new management, I don't own the last guy's mistakes" stamp on their rule; but a viable replacement Russian leader is quite unlikely to be "Western-Friendly" in general. And there would then be Trouble at some point in the future.
re #3, aren't the senior Kremlin figures just as pro-war/Z as Putin (or even more so)? This would suggest that unless politics in Russia is completely upended in the event of Putin dying or being incapacitated, the war would likely continue or escalate :-/
How do you predict that it will end?
"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." (1)
Can this war go on for many years at current intensity? No. Can it be sustained past the end of 2023? Maybe, maybe not. Can it continue to "slow burn" - possibly.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein#Stein's_Law
A few obvious ways:
1. Russia starts "testing" nukes and a deal is brokered that pisses off both Ukraine and Russia but allows them both to claim "victory", save face and not start a thermonuclear war (this is Henry Kissinger's take); or
2. US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
3. Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
All good, but I would add a more likely senario: A stalemate where Ukraine efectivly regains almost all of its territory, Russia is unable to sustain a meaningful campaign, but Russia continiues limited attacks with missiles and some artilery pokes near the border to avoid lossing face.
1 reply →
...a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia...
Some have forgotten that Putin was originally declared "a Western-friendly replacement". The world would have been a more peaceful place if we hadn't interfered in Russian politics to support Yeltsin and his chosen successor. Russia isn't the only nation in which our choice (??) of leader has led to "blowback", both for the victim nation and for most Americans. We should stop doing this.
2 replies →
On the US financing Ukraine, the house legislature party switch is likely to lead to this without any catastrophe or new events.
Though, the US legislature is less likely to be able to navigate an economic disaster during this split as well.
> Russia starts "testing" nukes and a deal is brokered that pisses off both Ukraine and Russia but allows them both to claim "victory", save face and not start a thermonuclear war (this is Henry Kissinger's take); or
That seems like a bad precedent - nuclear blackmail and aggression works, you get rewarded with territory/concessions.
It is certainly a possibility, but in a way loss of credibility for US/West.
> US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
I think the monetary help might decrease, but the military help rather not. Sending old weapon stocks don't really produce any economic hit.
> Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
This is very unlikely to happen. Putin might be replaced one way or another, but the replacement won't be particularly friendly to the West. They might be slightly less (or more) antagonistic.
5 replies →
Apart from (1), the rest of your scenarios are unlikely.
Assuming (1) does not happen, there is likely little chance of the West seriously dropping its support for Ukraine. Maybe popular opinion of citizens will increasingly turn against the support, but the governments know very well what kind of message not supporting Ukraine sends to Russia.
And, Putin may well have a health/life issue, but if power passes to another person, it is likely to be someone even more hawkish than Putin. If you follow Russian opinion it seems Putin is seen as rather soft.
1 reply →
3a Although any "Putin replacement" could end the current Russian folly in Ukraine, if only to put a "under new management, I don't own the last guy's mistakes" stamp on their rule; but a viable replacement Russian leader is quite unlikely to be "Western-Friendly" in general. And there would then be Trouble at some point in the future.
re #3, aren't the senior Kremlin figures just as pro-war/Z as Putin (or even more so)? This would suggest that unless politics in Russia is completely upended in the event of Putin dying or being incapacitated, the war would likely continue or escalate :-/
3 replies →