Languish.org

Curious what the Languish Brain Trust has to say about the likeliest outcome of the war. Kept to just four main options to keep things simple but of course there are many variations that can be discussed in the thread. Would like to keep this thread on topic as to people's various predictions and the final outcome and keep general discussion about the war, nationalism, what to call alcoholic beverages and and city names and pronunciations, to the main war thread.

So everyone is on the same page, we are defining the Russo-Ukrainian War as starting in 2014 (the illegal annexation of Crimea) to its ultimate end result at some point in the future. The 2022 invasion is another phase in the conflict. In fact the Wikipedia article on the war also starts it in 2014 too so let's just go with that. So in some sense we are trying to figure out what the end result of the 2022 invasion will be and what the ultimate result of the entire conflict will be. Should be an easy lay-up of a question.

Did you mean to make control of all Ukraine an option?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 08, 2022, 10:52:52 AMDid you mean to make control of all Ukraine an option?

I did and it seems I can't change the poll options.  :hmm:

unconscious bias

Voted Ukrainian victory and return to pre-2014 boundaries.  But not before a very difficult occupation by Russia and after the current regime collapses.  It will be years, if not decades. 

Between 1 and 2.
Russia will gain more but not enough to be remotely worth the cost for them.
But then even seizing crimea was an error which cost them so....

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 08, 2022, 10:58:13 AMI did and it seems I can't change the poll options.  :hmm:

Fixed it for you.  I can reset the votes if anyone wants a do-over.

Russia annexing Crimea and DPR/LPR (or them "indendent") seems most likely right now and might be a stable solution.

If the Russians go for more I can see Ukraine winning this in a few years or decades.

I find the idea of Russia retreating back to Crimea and DPR/LPR in exchange for Ukraine recognizing those losses as highly unlikely.  The biggest issue for Russia now is the sanctions.  I don't think that would be enough for the west to drop the sanctions.

My most likely guess is after months of horrific war the Russians level half of Kyiv and take the city.  Putin installs a puppet government that rules over the eastern half, with a rump Western Ukraine based out of L'viv.  No idea if Zelensky survives to make it to L'viv.  It's enough for Putin to declare victory, and the Russian military is in rough shape (as is the Ukrainian).  It them slows to a "frozen conflict" / low level insurgency.

Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2022, 12:37:22 PMI find the idea of Russia retreating back to Crimea and DPR/LPR in exchange for Ukraine recognizing those losses as highly unlikely.  The biggest issue for Russia now is the sanctions.  I don't think that would be enough for the west to drop the sanctions.

My most likely guess is after months of horrific war the Russians level half of Kyiv and take the city.  Putin installs a puppet government that rules over the eastern half, with a rump Western Ukraine based out of L'viv.  No idea if Zelensky survives to make it to L'viv.  It's enough for Putin to declare victory, and the Russian military is in rough shape (as is the Ukrainian).  It them slows to a "frozen conflict" / low level insurgency.

This. Any normalization with the West at this point would require Putin being gone, at a bare minimum.

I think Russia will eventually take Kyiv, declare victory, and ocuppy roughly the eastern half of the country and the coasts, leaving the western half unoccupied. We'll get a frozen-ish conflict and from there I guess it will nearly impossible to maintain an occupation while the Russian economy crashes. So eventually Ukraine recovers its freedom, but it will take years.

I voted #2, but I think there is a chance of total Ukrainian victory.  Russia appears to be suffering significant losses of equipment, and if that Ukrainian figure for Russian casualties is anywhere close to accurate, that's a good chunk of the invasion force.  Whereas we, the West, have the productive capacity to supply Ukraine with virtually endless gear.  I think a coup to oust Putin is a non zero probability.

I have been surprised by a number of things in this war already, and at this point I would not be surprised to see a military collapse from Russia.  The cell phone ban that soldiers have is apparently not total (so some information is about for them), people back home are remembering the nightmare of conflicts like Afghanistan, and this is not 1941 where the Motherland is actually in danger - more like 1917-1918 when soldiers may well begin to realize this is shit.

I wouldn't bank on it, but I would not be surprised at this point.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 08, 2022, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 08, 2022, 10:58:13 AMI did and it seems I can't change the poll options.  :hmm:

Fixed it for you.  I can reset the votes if anyone wants a do-over.

Thanks!  :hug:

I find it extremely hard to predict this. But if there is a quick peace (which I doubt) my guess is it will be Russia getting Ukraine to accept the loss of the Crimea and likely DPR/LRP. This with or without a regime change in Moscow.

Would any post-Putin regime in Moscow ever give up the Crimea?

The grown up thing to do with Crimea would be to conduct an internationally supervised referendum.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2022, 01:40:22 PMThe grown up thing to do with Crimea would be to conduct an internationally supervised referendum.

And who gets to vote? Current inhabitants? Pre-2014 ones?

I'm not aware of any significant population transfer after the annexation.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2022, 02:01:28 PMI'm not aware of any significant population transfer after the annexation.

Last Ukranian census is from 2001, and it had Crimea + Sevastopol at 2.37 million people (60% Russians, 25% Ukranians), in 2014 Russia did a Census of its own that had 2.19 million people (68% Russians, 15% Ukranians).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2022, 01:40:22 PMThe grown up thing to do with Crimea would be to conduct an internationally supervised referendum.

Conducted by Russia?

And while I don't think there's been any forced population transfer, Russia has definitely encouraged investment in Crimea by it's citizens, and correspondingly I don't doubt that Ukrainian and Tatar sympathisers have fled.

Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2022, 01:18:13 PMI find it extremely hard to predict this. But if there is a quick peace (which I doubt) my guess is it will be Russia getting Ukraine to accept the loss of the Crimea and likely DPR/LRP. This with or without a regime change in Moscow.

Would any post-Putin regime in Moscow ever give up the Crimea?

Depends on the nature of the regime and how it gained power, I'd think.

Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2022, 02:22:13 PM

Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2022, 01:18:13 PMI find it extremely hard to predict this. But if there is a quick peace (which I doubt) my guess is it will be Russia getting Ukraine to accept the loss of the Crimea and likely DPR/LRP. This with or without a regime change in Moscow.

Would any post-Putin regime in Moscow ever give up the Crimea?

Depends on the nature of the regime and how it gained power, I'd think.

I mean if someone comes to power who decides that the problem was that Putin was too soft and not nationalist enough things could be rough.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2022, 01:40:22 PMThe grown up thing to do with Crimea would be to conduct an internationally supervised referendum.

It would have been.
And it likely would have voted to join Russia anyway, even if all was done completely fairly and with international observers.
Now however with the pro Ukranian segment of the population cleared out and a Russian regime installed this victory would be tainted.

From what I've heard the place where this hurts Ukraine is not so much in the loss of crimea itself but in the loss of much of their sea territory - territory with potentially significant fossil fuel reserves.

Also an interesting point on Russias take over of crimea is it swung the electoral calculus in Ukraine such that it would already swing far more western even if it didn't have new reason to hate Russia. There are pros and cons for both countries in having crimea.

Quote from: Tyr on March 08, 2022, 02:39:05 PMAlso an interesting point on Russias take over of crimea is it swung the electoral calculus in Ukraine such that it would already swing far more western even if it didn't have new reason to hate Russia. There are pros and cons for both countries in having crimea.

Ukraine had a very strong pro-Russia fraction for the first 25 years of the country's life.  The first two Presidents (Kravchuk and Puchma) were ex-communists with no strong ideology (and besides this was during Yeltsin), but by 2004 and the Orange Revolution while the western-facing Yuschenko ultimately won, it was hard fought with the pro-Russian Yanukovuch.  And Yanukovych proceeded to win the next election - again on a pro-Russian message.

But then came the 2014 Maidan revolution, plus the seizure of Crimea and other territories.  As I understand it there is now no meaningful appetite for pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine.

I have no idea - or too many. I think there's so many possibilities I'm not sure.

But if I had to guess now, I think a Ukrainian "win".

I think it's probably unlikely that includes Crimea and may not include DNR or LNR either. But I think their current territorial integrity is upheld, Russia ends up withdrawing and the freedom of Ukraine to apply for/join the EU or NATO becomes real.

I think Ukraine wins and Putin gets couped.

Yeah, there should be a Putin gets ousted option. That is a viable option. Otherwise I went with the stalemate. The west is not going to resestablish normal ties with a Putin led government unless there is a stalemate, at least. If Putin refuses that, I can see people inside the Kremlin look to oust him.

Why isn't there an explicvit 'WW3 happens' option?

Because that and possible nuclear war is at its biggest possibility in more than 40 years.

Quote from: mongers on March 08, 2022, 04:06:21 PMWhy isn't there an explicvit 'WW3 happens' option?

Because that and possible nuclear war is at its biggest possibility in more than 40 years.

40 years ago was 1982.  Definitely a higher risk of nuclear war then.  Do you recall in 1983 when the USSR shot down that Korean jetliner?  Plus Afghanistan had been invaded by the USSR, and Reagan was talking abou an "evil empire"?

In the 80s even the rusty sardine can that was Whiskey On The Rocks carried nukes.

Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2022, 04:11:39 PM40 years ago was 1982.  Definitely a higher risk of nuclear war then.  Do you recall in 1983 when the USSR shot down that Korean jetliner?  Plus Afghanistan had been invaded by the USSR, and Reagan was talking abou an "evil empire"?

Or not known and accidental but Able Archer which is probably the closest we've come to end of the world.

Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2022, 04:11:39 PM

Quote from: mongers on March 08, 2022, 04:06:21 PMWhy isn't there an explicvit 'WW3 happens' option?

Because that and possible nuclear war is at its biggest possibility in more than 40 years.

40 years ago was 1982.  Definitely a higher risk of nuclear war then.  Do you recall in 1983 when the USSR shot down that Korean jetliner?  Plus Afghanistan had been invaded by the USSR, and Reagan was talking abou an "evil empire"?

Nope I deliberately included most of the 80s, then the actors were more understandable or predictable in their actions, than Putin is now:
 
The Korean airliner was a well defined crisis and containable.
Afghanistan was a developing disaster for the USSR than was largely contained, do you recall much cross border attacks by the Soviets into Pakistan?
The Evil empire stuff certainly annoyed the European left, was largely for internal US politics, Americas foreign policy towards the USSR was well sign posted and carefully managed ie the introduction of cruise missiles and Pershings into the European theatre. 

Sure the chances of a tripwire or accidental conflict were real, see Able Archer 83(?), but with Putin's huge gamble in the Ukraine it's very unpredictable.

I wasn't around for 62 so can't judge, but honestly I've never felt like we're all that close to nuclear armaggedon.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2022, 04:25:09 PMI wasn't around for 62 so can't judge, but honestly I've never felt like we're all that close to nuclear armaggedon.

My older friends who I've talked to definitely thought it was a probability then.

One of them was newly signed up and doing his basic training in the British army during that October, he said he was bricking it as an 18 year old. And he wasn't any sort of coward, as he went on to do some shadowy SF type stuff in the 60s.

Quote from: mongers on March 08, 2022, 04:30:13 PMAnd he wasn't any sort of coward, as he went on to do some shadowy SF type stuff in the 60s.

Damn hippies.

Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2022, 03:39:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on March 08, 2022, 02:39:05 PMAlso an interesting point on Russias take over of crimea is it swung the electoral calculus in Ukraine such that it would already swing far more western even if it didn't have new reason to hate Russia. There are pros and cons for both countries in having crimea.

Ukraine had a very strong pro-Russia fraction for the first 25 years of the country's life.  The first two Presidents (Kravchuk and Puchma) were ex-communists with no strong ideology (and besides this was during Yeltsin), but by 2004 and the Orange Revolution while the western-facing Yuschenko ultimately won, it was hard fought with the pro-Russian Yanukovuch.  And Yanukovych proceeded to win the next election - again on a pro-Russian message.

But then came the 2014 Maidan revolution, plus the seizure of Crimea and other territories.  As I understand it there is now no meaningful appetite for pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine.

Look at typical election maps and it tended to split 50-50 down the middle, with Crimea a significant part of the russian side.

Eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election

Crimea in Russia breaks that even absent any other Russian moves.

At this point I think Putin, as the prime actor in all this, has to decide whether he wants to go all in or cash out and try again later.

A) If he goes all in, I would expect an eventual Russian victory in the conventional war followed by years of an insurgency mire that brings down his government.

B) If he cashes out, he agrees to some terms that extract some concessions from the Ukrainians (e.g., recognition of Crimea to Russia and the Donbass republics), waits five years and tries again after Zelensky becomes unpopular, assassinates him and swoops in with VDV into Kyiv again.

If Putin is rational I would expect he chooses option B.

Giving up Crimea (and the letter combinations) may likely be the sacrifice necessary to gain peace. And FWIW Crimea has a lot less to do with Ukraine than Karelia had to do with Finland. Giving up Karelia was very bitter for the Finns, it was in some ways the spiritual heart of Finland, and also had the historically very significant city of Viborg. But giving it up in 1940 was good policy I think.

I have a book published in Finland after the Winter War that describes Karelia, the land that was lost, with lots of photographs. It's sad to think that the not rich but forward-looking towns, with their little industries proudly displayed, and beautiful farming communities etc, just disappeared. The people fled, and the Russians reduced it to a wasteland. I remember travelling through Viborg in 1991, and Jesus Christ. But moving forward is the way. Remembering what was taken from peace-loving people is important, but what is lost is lost.

I hope that Ukraine wins a great victory against Russia and isn't forced to make hard choices. But this seems unlikely.

I voted stalemate, but thus far

I thought Poutine wouldn't launch a full scale invasion. Biden had all but given him permission to seize the Donbas; so I assumed he'd be satisfied with that, (for now...)

Once the invasion began I thought Biden would have difficulties securing all but the most minor sanctions; prior to the invasion the majority of Americans hadn't supported the US even being involved in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

Also once the invasion began I thought the Russian war machine would quickly and easily overrun Ukraine; it's enormous as compared to Ukraine's army.

So, I wouldn't trust my predictions.

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 08, 2022, 04:47:45 PMAt this point I think Putin, as the prime actor in all this, has to decide whether he wants to go all in or cash out and try again later.

A) If he goes all in, I would expect an eventual Russian victory in the conventional war followed by years of an insurgency mire that brings down his government.

B) If he cashes out, he agrees to some terms that extract some concessions from the Ukrainians (e.g., recognition of Crimea to Russia and the Donbass republics), waits five years and tries again after Zelensky becomes unpopular, assassinates him and swoops in with VDV into Kyiv again.

If Putin is rational I would expect he chooses option B.

Plan B is not an option.  He can't try again in 5 years.

If it's that kind of resolution it's unlikely sanctions will be completely lifted, thus making it harder to Russia to re-arm.  Despite the US warning for weeks that Russia was going to invade they still managed some level of surprise because nobody believed they would do it.  They'll never get that again.

They West would help re-arm Ukraine like crazy.  It was only after the shooting started that many states finally agreed to ship offensive weaponry.

Now Russia could fix some of their problems - like their communications systems, and arrange for better supply chains.  But I don't think they'd be in any better situation than now.

Finally Putin is 69 now.  In 5 years he's 74.  He wants to finalize his legacy and knows he doesn't have a lot of time to do it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2022, 04:14:10 PMOr not known and accidental but Able Archer which is probably the closest we've come to end of the world.

Able Archer was not a particularly close call.  No one at any time believed that there were birds in the air.

Nov '79 was far worse.  The US National Command Authority was in fact convinced that the US was almost certainly under nuclear attack.  A nuclear attack simulation program had mistakenly been loaded into the operational computer system and NORAD reported over 2200 bird in the air, with impact times in the tens of minutes.  Lack of radar confirmation prevented the US launch.  It would have been a bad day for the world if there had been a solar flair right then that blinded the radars.

There was also the hacker teenager who thought he was playing a game.

Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2022, 06:38:52 PMThere was also the hacker teenager who thought he was playing a game.

Don't drag Ferris into this.

Quote from: The Larch on March 08, 2022, 02:18:10 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2022, 02:01:28 PMI'm not aware of any significant population transfer after the annexation.

Last Ukranian census is from 2001, and it had Crimea + Sevastopol at 2.37 million people (60% Russians, 25% Ukranians), in 2014 Russia did a Census of its own that had 2.19 million people (68% Russians, 15% Ukranians).

Going from 2.37 to 2.19 million in Ukraine is about par for the course.  Ukraine population has been shrinking quite badly everywhere.  They went down from 48.4 million to 45.0 million between 2001 and 2014.

Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2022, 06:51:13 PM

Quote from: The Larch on March 08, 2022, 02:18:10 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2022, 02:01:28 PMI'm not aware of any significant population transfer after the annexation.

Last Ukranian census is from 2001, and it had Crimea + Sevastopol at 2.37 million people (60% Russians, 25% Ukranians), in 2014 Russia did a Census of its own that had 2.19 million people (68% Russians, 15% Ukranians).

Going from 2.37 to 2.19 million in Ukraine is about par for the course.  Ukraine population has been shrinking quite badly everywhere.  They went down from 48.4 million to 45.0 million between 2001 and 2014.

Careful. The guys responsible for the 1937 Soviet census lived briefly to regret reporting negative growth.

Plenty of Crimean Tartars have been forced out since 2014 and I believe many have had to flee again as many resettled in central southern Ukraine.

Quote from: PDH on March 08, 2022, 06:43:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2022, 06:38:52 PMThere was also the hacker teenager who thought he was playing a game.

Don't drag Ferris into this.

Nothing playing a game a checkers can't solve.

Ukrainian victory; DPR/LPR dissolved, Russia keeps Crimea and gets water rights.

Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2022, 04:36:59 PM

Quote from: mongers on March 08, 2022, 04:30:13 PMAnd he wasn't any sort of coward, as he went on to do some shadowy SF type stuff in the 60s.

Damn hippies.

I bet he met some gentle people there.

Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2022, 05:10:15 PMPlan B is not an option.  He can't try again in 5 years.

If it's that kind of resolution it's unlikely sanctions will be completely lifted, thus making it harder to Russia to re-arm.  Despite the US warning for weeks that Russia was going to invade they still managed some level of surprise because nobody believed they would do it.  They'll never get that again.

They West would help re-arm Ukraine like crazy.  It was only after the shooting started that many states finally agreed to ship offensive weaponry.

Yeah - that's, I think, why the Russians have said they want "de-militarisation". Even if Ukraine agrees not to join NATO (and/or the EU - unclear as this hasn't come up in what I've read which is interesting/suspicious :hmm:) and recognises Crimea/LNR/DNR, I think it's likely that the West will be spending a lot to re-arm Ukraine and make another war by Russia even more costly. So it may be a bit more of a final settlement.

QuoteFinally Putin is 69 now.  In 5 years he's 74.  He wants to finalize his legacy and knows he doesn't have a lot of time to do it.

Yeah - and a lot of the people aorund him have aged with him. Looking at that security council meeting there's strong Brezhnev vibes. It feels like everyone is probably in their late 50s to early 70s. Not sure if they have an Andropov among them who's still insisting on getting actual reports with actual facts.

Putin put himself in a situation without any easy way out so a bit more of Ukraine, with control strengthened with LPR and DPR "independence" would not be a loss of face.
That's one more reason wy Mariupol matters now.

I still expect trouble as in partisan war in newly occupied territories.