Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\"." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around...." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress..." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it.", ">\n\nBe a compelling, character driven, narrative that works as a deep and complex heist movie outside of its attachment to one of the largest cultural phenomenons on the planet." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it.", ">\n\nBe a compelling, character driven, narrative that works as a deep and complex heist movie outside of its attachment to one of the largest cultural phenomenons on the planet.", ">\n\nThat's really an interesting take on Uncle Owen and his intentions.\nI would like to challenge this view. Luke did need Owen and his family. Without his uncle, he may be discovered by other sand people instead. He didn't know how to survive without the moisture farm. He needed someone to look after him. Uncle Owen was protecting him and I don't think that he was trying to protect him from only the empire, but from everything else that could have destroyed him." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it.", ">\n\nBe a compelling, character driven, narrative that works as a deep and complex heist movie outside of its attachment to one of the largest cultural phenomenons on the planet.", ">\n\nThat's really an interesting take on Uncle Owen and his intentions.\nI would like to challenge this view. Luke did need Owen and his family. Without his uncle, he may be discovered by other sand people instead. He didn't know how to survive without the moisture farm. He needed someone to look after him. Uncle Owen was protecting him and I don't think that he was trying to protect him from only the empire, but from everything else that could have destroyed him.", ">\n\nIt took you that long to realise that?\nGuess I’m at least 13hs slower than you" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it.", ">\n\nBe a compelling, character driven, narrative that works as a deep and complex heist movie outside of its attachment to one of the largest cultural phenomenons on the planet.", ">\n\nThat's really an interesting take on Uncle Owen and his intentions.\nI would like to challenge this view. Luke did need Owen and his family. Without his uncle, he may be discovered by other sand people instead. He didn't know how to survive without the moisture farm. He needed someone to look after him. Uncle Owen was protecting him and I don't think that he was trying to protect him from only the empire, but from everything else that could have destroyed him.", ">\n\nIt took you that long to realise that?\nGuess I’m at least 13hs slower than you", ">\n\nOwen Lars holds the galactic record for Holding Back The Tide of Skywalker Bullshit. Look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Leia got up to without any mitigation by the time of ANH. Now look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Luke got up to mere days after Uncle Owen died." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it.", ">\n\nBe a compelling, character driven, narrative that works as a deep and complex heist movie outside of its attachment to one of the largest cultural phenomenons on the planet.", ">\n\nThat's really an interesting take on Uncle Owen and his intentions.\nI would like to challenge this view. Luke did need Owen and his family. Without his uncle, he may be discovered by other sand people instead. He didn't know how to survive without the moisture farm. He needed someone to look after him. Uncle Owen was protecting him and I don't think that he was trying to protect him from only the empire, but from everything else that could have destroyed him.", ">\n\nIt took you that long to realise that?\nGuess I’m at least 13hs slower than you", ">\n\nOwen Lars holds the galactic record for Holding Back The Tide of Skywalker Bullshit. Look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Leia got up to without any mitigation by the time of ANH. Now look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Luke got up to mere days after Uncle Owen died.", ">\n\nMakes sense to me\nLuke has been set to go to piloting school for years at the start of a New Hope\nBut Owen is always the one to \"hold him back\"" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it.", ">\n\nBe a compelling, character driven, narrative that works as a deep and complex heist movie outside of its attachment to one of the largest cultural phenomenons on the planet.", ">\n\nThat's really an interesting take on Uncle Owen and his intentions.\nI would like to challenge this view. Luke did need Owen and his family. Without his uncle, he may be discovered by other sand people instead. He didn't know how to survive without the moisture farm. He needed someone to look after him. Uncle Owen was protecting him and I don't think that he was trying to protect him from only the empire, but from everything else that could have destroyed him.", ">\n\nIt took you that long to realise that?\nGuess I’m at least 13hs slower than you", ">\n\nOwen Lars holds the galactic record for Holding Back The Tide of Skywalker Bullshit. Look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Leia got up to without any mitigation by the time of ANH. Now look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Luke got up to mere days after Uncle Owen died.", ">\n\nMakes sense to me\nLuke has been set to go to piloting school for years at the start of a New Hope\nBut Owen is always the one to \"hold him back\"", ">\n\nDid you just watch Star Wars either for the first time ever or the first time high?" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nWell if Luke left who was going to repair those units in the south ridge by midday?", ">\n\nOr there’ll be hell to pay", ">\n\n'hell to pay?' turns on lightsaber what was that again? Did you say something? I didn't think so.", ">\n\nIf this is the case, then why did he continue to allow Luke to use the last name \"Skywalker\", or is that the equivalent to \"Smith\" or \"Jones\"?", ">\n\nI always thought this was weird too. But then after watching the obi-wan series it kind of showed that Anakin was presumed dead. So maybe changing his last name didn't seem important? Leia's last name was changed since she was adopted, whereas Luke got more of a \"godparent\" treatment", ">\n\nYeah that was established in the cartoons too. Asoka finds out in the Rebels series. Everyone thought Anikin was dead. Why change Luke’s name? If they were really trying to hide him from Anikin, the last place they would have taken him is to the only family Anikin seems to know of.", ">\n\nDuh? I mean, we can quibble over exactly how he was trying to protect Luke (didn’t want Luke to be discovered, didn’t want Luke to get involved in dangerous adventures, didn’t want Luke to ‘awaken’ his dark, Anakin-like tendencies?) but he clearly was making excuses to try and make Luke settle down and accept a ‘boring’ life as a moisture farmer.", ">\n\nYes, the \"don't go enlist\" theme is especially clear given when Star Wars premiered in theaters", ">\n\nKarma whoring or the Redditors can't put two and two together unless the character ecsplictly states their motivations. It's like watching toddler cartoons, \"you made me angry because you took my toy\".", ">\n\n\nYou can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!", ">\n\nGive me back my hands! These ones keep touching me… in places…", ">\n\nheh yeah they get around....", ">\n\nYup. He was a curmudgeon for sure but at heart it was protecting Luke. I think one of the best things Kenobi did (the series) was flesh his character out", ">\n\nThis is up there with.\n\"Duerrghh, lightsabers are in Star Wars\"", ">\n\nI thought he joined because the only 2 women in the galaxy were his aunt and his sister. Dude needed to get some.", ">\n\nYeah and he ends up making out with his sister. Real progress...", ">\n\nI thought that was pretty clear right from the start. Even as a little kid seeing it for the first time I thought, \"he just doesn't want Luke to leave home.\"", ">\n\nAlso he was trying to save Luke from a bad deal on power coverts at Toshi. Everyone knows they have the lowest prices because they are shit quality.", ">\n\nSanchez to Luke, \"Can I speak frankly? If you act like a cheap asshole, expect the shittiest portion.\"", ">\n\nFrankly, hiding Luke with Anakin's family on his home planet was probably not the brightest move to begin with, especially since they didn't even bother to change his name.", ">\n\nThey weren’t hiding him from Anikin. They thought he was dead (at least until Luke was older). They were hiding him from the sith, who would have no reason to know he existed.", ">\n\nExactly. Vader thought his unborn child died with Padme when he \"killed\" her on Mustafar. There's a comic set after ANH where Boba Fett learns the name of the pilot who blew up yhe death star, the one Vader sensed was strong in the force. When he told Vader, that's when Vader realised that Palpatine had lied about how Padme died, and that the baby survived.\nIf Luke had enlisted in the academy he would have been identified as force sensitive, even though no one was looking for him specifically. There's an episode of Rebels where this happens to a couple of imperial cadets, and they barely escape being handed over to the inquitors.", ">\n\nShower thought after watching Andor. \nLuke accepted the conspiracy theory of an old desert hermit and went gung ho into galactic terrorism I’m absolutely no time flat. \nHe went from whiny farm boy to killing millions of space nazis in the span of, what, 2 or 3 days, tops.", ">\n\nDo lightyears traveled factor into space age?", ">\n\nThis is not something that is figured out. It is clearly illustrated for the watcher.", ">\n\nThe film came out 45 years ago, yet you've only just worked this one out ?", ">\n\nIt’s a shower thought", ">\n\nFuck you for pointing out what sub this! Don’t you know how serious of a conversation this is!?!??!! Obvious /s", ">\n\nITT a whole lot of people who were not alive when the originals came out and can only see things through the lens of all that has happened since.\nNobody at the time thought his uncle was anything other than a curmudgeon. Nobody thought he was protecting Luke. And if not for all the stuff that has com e out in the decades since, this would indeed be a hot take.", ">\n\nI don’t agree at all. Imo uncle Owen’s actions were clearly that of a protective parent trying to keep Luke away from the violent fate of his father", ">\n\nWhich, when the movie came out, we had absolutely no way of knowing. It wasn't until years later when Empire came out that we could possibly have put that together.\nAgain, this is looking at it through the lens of someone who has seen all that came after A New Hope was released.", ">\n\nWe didn’t know why he was being protective but it was clear that he wasn’t just being an old curmudgeonly man he was protecting him from something", ">\n\nMan, I really need to re-watch the OG, it's been like a decade. I somehow never made that connection. XD", ">\n\nMaybe his uncle really didn't need luke. There is a possibility that uncle Owen could actually just want to get rid of the kid. In addition, we don't know at the end whether he really needed him or not. We all know that star wars is a movie, and it is fictional. Therefore, a lot of things in the movie are just made-up. We could really never know what is going on his mind.", ">\n\nPart of me resents the writers \"backfilling\" the ambiguities of motivation from the early films with new content that canonizes them. I feel I have a right to what I decided his motivation was for keeping Luke close to home. Yet, I can't deny being entertained by the newer stuff, even when they blow my notions up like a 3 meter womprat from my T-16", ">\n\nI can’t put my finger on what rogue one did to absolutely nail it.", ">\n\nBe a compelling, character driven, narrative that works as a deep and complex heist movie outside of its attachment to one of the largest cultural phenomenons on the planet.", ">\n\nThat's really an interesting take on Uncle Owen and his intentions.\nI would like to challenge this view. Luke did need Owen and his family. Without his uncle, he may be discovered by other sand people instead. He didn't know how to survive without the moisture farm. He needed someone to look after him. Uncle Owen was protecting him and I don't think that he was trying to protect him from only the empire, but from everything else that could have destroyed him.", ">\n\nIt took you that long to realise that?\nGuess I’m at least 13hs slower than you", ">\n\nOwen Lars holds the galactic record for Holding Back The Tide of Skywalker Bullshit. Look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Leia got up to without any mitigation by the time of ANH. Now look at all the Skywalker Bullshit that Luke got up to mere days after Uncle Owen died.", ">\n\nMakes sense to me\nLuke has been set to go to piloting school for years at the start of a New Hope\nBut Owen is always the one to \"hold him back\"", ">\n\nDid you just watch Star Wars either for the first time ever or the first time high?", ">\n\nBecause there’s not millions of Americans who’ve infiltrated every sector of the Chinese Communist Party." ]

[]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?" ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”" ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬" ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon" ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here.", ">\n\nXBB has been around for a while. XBB.1.5 is the nasty one that looks like it has a major growth advantage that may cause problems soon." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here.", ">\n\nXBB has been around for a while. XBB.1.5 is the nasty one that looks like it has a major growth advantage that may cause problems soon.", ">\n\nI'm moving into day 3 of Covid, somehow avoided it until now. It came on in a matter of hours and has been really awful. I'm vaccinated and boosted so I'm confident I'll be better soon, but I'm telling ya, you don't want this shit. Do yourself a favor and mask up this winter (and get your booster now if you haven't already.)" ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here.", ">\n\nXBB has been around for a while. XBB.1.5 is the nasty one that looks like it has a major growth advantage that may cause problems soon.", ">\n\nI'm moving into day 3 of Covid, somehow avoided it until now. It came on in a matter of hours and has been really awful. I'm vaccinated and boosted so I'm confident I'll be better soon, but I'm telling ya, you don't want this shit. Do yourself a favor and mask up this winter (and get your booster now if you haven't already.)", ">\n\nI genuinely cannot even begin to think about going back into lockdown mode." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here.", ">\n\nXBB has been around for a while. XBB.1.5 is the nasty one that looks like it has a major growth advantage that may cause problems soon.", ">\n\nI'm moving into day 3 of Covid, somehow avoided it until now. It came on in a matter of hours and has been really awful. I'm vaccinated and boosted so I'm confident I'll be better soon, but I'm telling ya, you don't want this shit. Do yourself a favor and mask up this winter (and get your booster now if you haven't already.)", ">\n\nI genuinely cannot even begin to think about going back into lockdown mode.", ">\n\nChoices are always difficult. \nGo on with your life. You get this, you could die. You get this, you could be severely damaged for the remainder of your life. You get this, you could be sick for a couple weeks. You get this, nothing happens. 🎲\nMe? I'm wearing a mask and looking like a fucking idiot in the grocery store. I am not getting this..." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here.", ">\n\nXBB has been around for a while. XBB.1.5 is the nasty one that looks like it has a major growth advantage that may cause problems soon.", ">\n\nI'm moving into day 3 of Covid, somehow avoided it until now. It came on in a matter of hours and has been really awful. I'm vaccinated and boosted so I'm confident I'll be better soon, but I'm telling ya, you don't want this shit. Do yourself a favor and mask up this winter (and get your booster now if you haven't already.)", ">\n\nI genuinely cannot even begin to think about going back into lockdown mode.", ">\n\nChoices are always difficult. \nGo on with your life. You get this, you could die. You get this, you could be severely damaged for the remainder of your life. You get this, you could be sick for a couple weeks. You get this, nothing happens. 🎲\nMe? I'm wearing a mask and looking like a fucking idiot in the grocery store. I am not getting this...", ">\n\nI really wish the media had focused more on the chances of permanent disability from it toward the beginning. It was such a larger percentage of cases than deaths. When I mention it to people they look at me like I’m crazy, as if that’s not an option." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here.", ">\n\nXBB has been around for a while. XBB.1.5 is the nasty one that looks like it has a major growth advantage that may cause problems soon.", ">\n\nI'm moving into day 3 of Covid, somehow avoided it until now. It came on in a matter of hours and has been really awful. I'm vaccinated and boosted so I'm confident I'll be better soon, but I'm telling ya, you don't want this shit. Do yourself a favor and mask up this winter (and get your booster now if you haven't already.)", ">\n\nI genuinely cannot even begin to think about going back into lockdown mode.", ">\n\nChoices are always difficult. \nGo on with your life. You get this, you could die. You get this, you could be severely damaged for the remainder of your life. You get this, you could be sick for a couple weeks. You get this, nothing happens. 🎲\nMe? I'm wearing a mask and looking like a fucking idiot in the grocery store. I am not getting this...", ">\n\nI really wish the media had focused more on the chances of permanent disability from it toward the beginning. It was such a larger percentage of cases than deaths. When I mention it to people they look at me like I’m crazy, as if that’s not an option.", ">\n\nAin’t it nice that we get this information after Christmas. Nothing like keeping it under wraps till a lot of families gathers in one house. Not to mention everyone getting on a tube to wherever. It’s almost like they want it to spread like a wildfire and hope for minimal damage to society." ]

[ "I was looking for a text of this story and ran across this from NBC a month ago...\nXBB variant's arrival won't cause a new deadly COVID surge ...\nNov 25, 2022\nYou're not going to find anyone from either political party, and certainly not the business community to state the obvious. The longer the virus hangs around, the greater opportunity for strains to develop.", ">\n\nChina is going to go through a second huge wave once their tourists bring this variant back home.", ">\n\nAnyone have any more than a paragraph’s worth of news on this?", ">\n\nWhile the U.S. and other countries focus on the increasing footprint of sub-subvariants of the omicron iteration of COVID-19, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, healthcare systems here and around the world might also want to keep a wary eye on yet another sub-subvariant: XBB.\nJapanese researchers say in a preprint study posted Tuesday that XBB exhibits a unique path into existence not seen before in COVID-19 variants, and this gives it more of a “profound resistance to antiviral humoral immunity induced by breakthrough infections of prior Omicron subvariants.”\nThe study, unveiled Tuesday by researchers with the University of Tokyo, bolsters that assessment, stating that “to our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a SARS-CoV-2 variant increasing its fitness through recombination rather than single mutations.”\nRecombination means the joining of variants that arise from two genetically distinct parental strains, creating opportunities for a virus to adapt to, and escape from, antibodies and other genetic roadblocks, be they produced by scientists or nature. Recombination presented a significant challenge in the early days of the fight against HIV/AIDS.\nKevin Kavanagh, M.D., is the president and founder of the patient advocacy organization Health Watch USA and has kept a close eye on COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Kavanagh told Fierce Healthcare that “the most disturbing finding in the study is that this virus is a recombinant virus where two different genomes or genetic materials from viruses were recombined, as opposed to a chance mutation.”\nKavanagh pointed out that the U.S. healthcare system currently deals with the tripledemic of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and COVID-19. Kavanagh said how, in the summer, Texas Children’s Hospital had to deal with about 25 cases where children had been infected by RSV and COVID-19 at the same time.\n“If viruses can start swapping genetic material, then the sky is the limit on the number of variants and the various characteristics which may be produced,” says Kavanagh. \nXBB is not as lethal as the delta variant, the deadliest iteration of COVID-19, but it is as lethal as BA.2.75, according to the study by Japanese researchers. The study notes that XBB first emerged in the summer in India and its neighboring countries, but health systems should not consider XBB a regional problem, and “this variant has a potential to spread worldwide in the near future.”\nXBB’s presence in the U.S. is growing rapidly and now makes up 18.3% of new cases as of the week ending Dec. 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a sharp increase from the week before.\nUniversity of Tokyo researchers said that “XBB acquired two sets of a pair of immune escape-associated and infectivity-enhancing substitutions by only one recombination event. Harboring the two sets of the substitution pairs would be one of the causes why XBB shows higher Re than other Omicron subvariants. Together, although XBB emerged via a unique evolutionary pathway, our data suggest that XBB also follows the same evolutionary rule with other Omicron subvariants.”\nThe R0, or R naught, estimates a pathogen’s contagiousness, accounting for biological features as well as behavior of individuals. Re is the same as R0, minus the assumption that everybody’s susceptible to infection. \nThe study said that “although various ‘local variants’ including XBB have simultaneously and convergently emerged in late 2022, local variants showing a higher transmissibility will eventually spread to the whole world, like XBB. Therefore, continued in-depth viral genomic surveillance and real-time evaluation of the risk of newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though considered local variants at the time of emergence, should be crucial.”\nKavanagh stressed that a virus created through recombination “can make huge leaps and bounds in changes in its characteristics in a very short period of time. The fact that this has been observed is even more concerning than this virus itself.”", ">\n\nThe fact the source is recombination is terrifying. I say that as a biologist. 😬", ">\n\nWe keep going eventually Musk may start naming kids after these variants.", ">\n\nAs toxic as the Musk family is, we may be naming variants after the kids.", ">\n\nÆ XBB (is a hoax) ‘Steven’ Musk\ne: I’m not claiming it’s a hoax, but assuming it is in the eyes of fElon", ">\n\nYeah but let’s hear and pay attention to that billionaire fuckstick founder of Home Despot who wants to bitch about “people not wanting to work anymore.”\nAnother million will die. Millions - MILLIONS - more will develop long Covid issues. \nPeople need to answer:\nWhat is worse, dying from Covid or ending up with PERMANENT health ailments like heart problems, etc. what are we going to end up with? A society of brain-fog fuckwits who all have serious heart problems and serious fatigue? Great job clowns that’s a wonderful goal.", ">\n\nI got it for the first time a few days ago, I was quad boosted, I work in a place where hundreds of people entered a day and I never got it untill this week, something is brewing.", ">\n\nSame here. My husband and I managed to go the entire pandemic without catching it until Christmas weekend. We’re both vaxxed and boosted but it still kicked out ass hard the first few days. I’m on day 4 and I hope we get better from here.", ">\n\nXBB has been around for a while. XBB.1.5 is the nasty one that looks like it has a major growth advantage that may cause problems soon.", ">\n\nI'm moving into day 3 of Covid, somehow avoided it until now. It came on in a matter of hours and has been really awful. I'm vaccinated and boosted so I'm confident I'll be better soon, but I'm telling ya, you don't want this shit. Do yourself a favor and mask up this winter (and get your booster now if you haven't already.)", ">\n\nI genuinely cannot even begin to think about going back into lockdown mode.", ">\n\nChoices are always difficult. \nGo on with your life. You get this, you could die. You get this, you could be severely damaged for the remainder of your life. You get this, you could be sick for a couple weeks. You get this, nothing happens. 🎲\nMe? I'm wearing a mask and looking like a fucking idiot in the grocery store. I am not getting this...", ">\n\nI really wish the media had focused more on the chances of permanent disability from it toward the beginning. It was such a larger percentage of cases than deaths. When I mention it to people they look at me like I’m crazy, as if that’s not an option.", ">\n\nAin’t it nice that we get this information after Christmas. Nothing like keeping it under wraps till a lot of families gathers in one house. Not to mention everyone getting on a tube to wherever. It’s almost like they want it to spread like a wildfire and hope for minimal damage to society.", ">\n\nSuch a great Britpop band🙆‍♀️ \n And back to reality as the ability to read kicks in.\nDear God this news sucks 🙁" ]

[]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future.", ">\n\nOn the one hand, Ukraine unlocked the unlimited free money cheat by offering Biden & friends kickbacks.\nOn the other hand, Russia knocked out power for like half of Ukraine and it's January next week.\nI think you're right in that it's silly for anyone younger than the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to think this is all over not even a year after it started, but Ukraine shot missiles into Poland and tried to false flag everyone into WW3. The rabble isn't happy about supporting this proxy war." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future.", ">\n\nOn the one hand, Ukraine unlocked the unlimited free money cheat by offering Biden & friends kickbacks.\nOn the other hand, Russia knocked out power for like half of Ukraine and it's January next week.\nI think you're right in that it's silly for anyone younger than the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to think this is all over not even a year after it started, but Ukraine shot missiles into Poland and tried to false flag everyone into WW3. The rabble isn't happy about supporting this proxy war.", ">\n\nI think you're overstating what happened in Poland. Those were anti-missile missiles that fell into Poland. Ukraine didn't aim for Poland. There was like a 4-6 hour period where people were pointing the finger at Russia, but it didn't exactly take that long to figure out what really happened. This isn't any different than when Russia blew up their own pipeline and pretended to be all hot and bothered about it for like 5 minutes until everyone figured out Russia did it themselves. It is a dangerous game and everyone is playing their part, but there hasn't been a legitimate false flag attempt to start WW3 by either side IMO. Just half hearted attempts to gain sympathy, support, and attention that lasts until the next news cycle.\nI won't dispute the corruption that plagued Ukraine and Biden's role in it. Russia obviously has serious corruption themselves as witnessed by their \"2nd best military in the world\" fleeing Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson since this war began. Fixing corruption is in the interest of all nations and is completely outside of why I think Russia invaded Ukraine.\nI'm torn as to whether Russia is making good use of limited resources by cutting the power in Ukraine. Seems really short sighted that they are working on hurting civilians rather than eliminating military targets. This is the same mistake Germany made in WWII by attacking London rather than manufacturing centers. Analysis of WWII suggests that if Germany had attacked manufacturing centers over London, they would have had much more success over defeating Britain. Likely the same is true with Russia's decisions to attack the electrical grid over much better targets." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future.", ">\n\nOn the one hand, Ukraine unlocked the unlimited free money cheat by offering Biden & friends kickbacks.\nOn the other hand, Russia knocked out power for like half of Ukraine and it's January next week.\nI think you're right in that it's silly for anyone younger than the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to think this is all over not even a year after it started, but Ukraine shot missiles into Poland and tried to false flag everyone into WW3. The rabble isn't happy about supporting this proxy war.", ">\n\nI think you're overstating what happened in Poland. Those were anti-missile missiles that fell into Poland. Ukraine didn't aim for Poland. There was like a 4-6 hour period where people were pointing the finger at Russia, but it didn't exactly take that long to figure out what really happened. This isn't any different than when Russia blew up their own pipeline and pretended to be all hot and bothered about it for like 5 minutes until everyone figured out Russia did it themselves. It is a dangerous game and everyone is playing their part, but there hasn't been a legitimate false flag attempt to start WW3 by either side IMO. Just half hearted attempts to gain sympathy, support, and attention that lasts until the next news cycle.\nI won't dispute the corruption that plagued Ukraine and Biden's role in it. Russia obviously has serious corruption themselves as witnessed by their \"2nd best military in the world\" fleeing Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson since this war began. Fixing corruption is in the interest of all nations and is completely outside of why I think Russia invaded Ukraine.\nI'm torn as to whether Russia is making good use of limited resources by cutting the power in Ukraine. Seems really short sighted that they are working on hurting civilians rather than eliminating military targets. This is the same mistake Germany made in WWII by attacking London rather than manufacturing centers. Analysis of WWII suggests that if Germany had attacked manufacturing centers over London, they would have had much more success over defeating Britain. Likely the same is true with Russia's decisions to attack the electrical grid over much better targets.", ">\n\nI don’t think that Russian outright victory is a foregone conclusion, no. I think that ship has basically sailed unless something drastic changes\nBut I do think that Ukraine will probably have a much harder time advancing now that they’ve pushed out the Russians from Kherson and around Kharkiv. Those were the two most obviously vulnerable places for the Russians; the only place left now is zaporozhia, and it’s been so far a complete bloodbath stalemate. \nThe Russian economy has its weaknesses, but it started from a much better position than Ukraine. Ukraines economy is pretty poor. Warfare and missile bombardment dont help matters either, and military aid is always less of a sure thing than domestic production.\nThe problem for Ukraine is that russias numbers are from now on out going to increase with the “partial mobilization” that started. Now, I think that Russia doing more of those will be very costly for the Russian economy, and might mean a more unstable domestic situation in Russia. But Russia has a manpower pool that dwarfs Ukraine’s by several times. Russia’s historical strength has never been in wars of quick decision; they’ve been in wars of attrition. \nI think the most likely outcome is a stalemate in the short term and a long term Russian attritional partial victory. I’d say this is a comparable moment to the replacement of voroshilov by timoshenko in the winter war. The Russians have learned lessons and are now biding their time in order to strike more effectively in the future." ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future.", ">\n\nOn the one hand, Ukraine unlocked the unlimited free money cheat by offering Biden & friends kickbacks.\nOn the other hand, Russia knocked out power for like half of Ukraine and it's January next week.\nI think you're right in that it's silly for anyone younger than the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to think this is all over not even a year after it started, but Ukraine shot missiles into Poland and tried to false flag everyone into WW3. The rabble isn't happy about supporting this proxy war.", ">\n\nI think you're overstating what happened in Poland. Those were anti-missile missiles that fell into Poland. Ukraine didn't aim for Poland. There was like a 4-6 hour period where people were pointing the finger at Russia, but it didn't exactly take that long to figure out what really happened. This isn't any different than when Russia blew up their own pipeline and pretended to be all hot and bothered about it for like 5 minutes until everyone figured out Russia did it themselves. It is a dangerous game and everyone is playing their part, but there hasn't been a legitimate false flag attempt to start WW3 by either side IMO. Just half hearted attempts to gain sympathy, support, and attention that lasts until the next news cycle.\nI won't dispute the corruption that plagued Ukraine and Biden's role in it. Russia obviously has serious corruption themselves as witnessed by their \"2nd best military in the world\" fleeing Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson since this war began. Fixing corruption is in the interest of all nations and is completely outside of why I think Russia invaded Ukraine.\nI'm torn as to whether Russia is making good use of limited resources by cutting the power in Ukraine. Seems really short sighted that they are working on hurting civilians rather than eliminating military targets. This is the same mistake Germany made in WWII by attacking London rather than manufacturing centers. Analysis of WWII suggests that if Germany had attacked manufacturing centers over London, they would have had much more success over defeating Britain. Likely the same is true with Russia's decisions to attack the electrical grid over much better targets.", ">\n\nI don’t think that Russian outright victory is a foregone conclusion, no. I think that ship has basically sailed unless something drastic changes\nBut I do think that Ukraine will probably have a much harder time advancing now that they’ve pushed out the Russians from Kherson and around Kharkiv. Those were the two most obviously vulnerable places for the Russians; the only place left now is zaporozhia, and it’s been so far a complete bloodbath stalemate. \nThe Russian economy has its weaknesses, but it started from a much better position than Ukraine. Ukraines economy is pretty poor. Warfare and missile bombardment dont help matters either, and military aid is always less of a sure thing than domestic production.\nThe problem for Ukraine is that russias numbers are from now on out going to increase with the “partial mobilization” that started. Now, I think that Russia doing more of those will be very costly for the Russian economy, and might mean a more unstable domestic situation in Russia. But Russia has a manpower pool that dwarfs Ukraine’s by several times. Russia’s historical strength has never been in wars of quick decision; they’ve been in wars of attrition. \nI think the most likely outcome is a stalemate in the short term and a long term Russian attritional partial victory. I’d say this is a comparable moment to the replacement of voroshilov by timoshenko in the winter war. The Russians have learned lessons and are now biding their time in order to strike more effectively in the future.", ">\n\nYeah, the one area the Russian's can win is attritional victory IF they manage to avoid economic defeat. Do you see the possibility that they'll be able to outlast economic demise and even be willing to push themselves this close to collapse knowing that even after this war is \"won\" they'll need to continue throwing money into maintaining their gains and likely face many more years of bitter relationships with much of the richest nations in the world?" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future.", ">\n\nOn the one hand, Ukraine unlocked the unlimited free money cheat by offering Biden & friends kickbacks.\nOn the other hand, Russia knocked out power for like half of Ukraine and it's January next week.\nI think you're right in that it's silly for anyone younger than the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to think this is all over not even a year after it started, but Ukraine shot missiles into Poland and tried to false flag everyone into WW3. The rabble isn't happy about supporting this proxy war.", ">\n\nI think you're overstating what happened in Poland. Those were anti-missile missiles that fell into Poland. Ukraine didn't aim for Poland. There was like a 4-6 hour period where people were pointing the finger at Russia, but it didn't exactly take that long to figure out what really happened. This isn't any different than when Russia blew up their own pipeline and pretended to be all hot and bothered about it for like 5 minutes until everyone figured out Russia did it themselves. It is a dangerous game and everyone is playing their part, but there hasn't been a legitimate false flag attempt to start WW3 by either side IMO. Just half hearted attempts to gain sympathy, support, and attention that lasts until the next news cycle.\nI won't dispute the corruption that plagued Ukraine and Biden's role in it. Russia obviously has serious corruption themselves as witnessed by their \"2nd best military in the world\" fleeing Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson since this war began. Fixing corruption is in the interest of all nations and is completely outside of why I think Russia invaded Ukraine.\nI'm torn as to whether Russia is making good use of limited resources by cutting the power in Ukraine. Seems really short sighted that they are working on hurting civilians rather than eliminating military targets. This is the same mistake Germany made in WWII by attacking London rather than manufacturing centers. Analysis of WWII suggests that if Germany had attacked manufacturing centers over London, they would have had much more success over defeating Britain. Likely the same is true with Russia's decisions to attack the electrical grid over much better targets.", ">\n\nI don’t think that Russian outright victory is a foregone conclusion, no. I think that ship has basically sailed unless something drastic changes\nBut I do think that Ukraine will probably have a much harder time advancing now that they’ve pushed out the Russians from Kherson and around Kharkiv. Those were the two most obviously vulnerable places for the Russians; the only place left now is zaporozhia, and it’s been so far a complete bloodbath stalemate. \nThe Russian economy has its weaknesses, but it started from a much better position than Ukraine. Ukraines economy is pretty poor. Warfare and missile bombardment dont help matters either, and military aid is always less of a sure thing than domestic production.\nThe problem for Ukraine is that russias numbers are from now on out going to increase with the “partial mobilization” that started. Now, I think that Russia doing more of those will be very costly for the Russian economy, and might mean a more unstable domestic situation in Russia. But Russia has a manpower pool that dwarfs Ukraine’s by several times. Russia’s historical strength has never been in wars of quick decision; they’ve been in wars of attrition. \nI think the most likely outcome is a stalemate in the short term and a long term Russian attritional partial victory. I’d say this is a comparable moment to the replacement of voroshilov by timoshenko in the winter war. The Russians have learned lessons and are now biding their time in order to strike more effectively in the future.", ">\n\nYeah, the one area the Russian's can win is attritional victory IF they manage to avoid economic defeat. Do you see the possibility that they'll be able to outlast economic demise and even be willing to push themselves this close to collapse knowing that even after this war is \"won\" they'll need to continue throwing money into maintaining their gains and likely face many more years of bitter relationships with much of the richest nations in the world?", ">\n\nDo we know they’re all that close to economic collapse? I mean Russia has faced economic collapse before, many times in fact. Compare what they’re going through right now to 1998, or even 2014. They’re doing much better now. What indications are there that they’re about to collapse economically?" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future.", ">\n\nOn the one hand, Ukraine unlocked the unlimited free money cheat by offering Biden & friends kickbacks.\nOn the other hand, Russia knocked out power for like half of Ukraine and it's January next week.\nI think you're right in that it's silly for anyone younger than the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to think this is all over not even a year after it started, but Ukraine shot missiles into Poland and tried to false flag everyone into WW3. The rabble isn't happy about supporting this proxy war.", ">\n\nI think you're overstating what happened in Poland. Those were anti-missile missiles that fell into Poland. Ukraine didn't aim for Poland. There was like a 4-6 hour period where people were pointing the finger at Russia, but it didn't exactly take that long to figure out what really happened. This isn't any different than when Russia blew up their own pipeline and pretended to be all hot and bothered about it for like 5 minutes until everyone figured out Russia did it themselves. It is a dangerous game and everyone is playing their part, but there hasn't been a legitimate false flag attempt to start WW3 by either side IMO. Just half hearted attempts to gain sympathy, support, and attention that lasts until the next news cycle.\nI won't dispute the corruption that plagued Ukraine and Biden's role in it. Russia obviously has serious corruption themselves as witnessed by their \"2nd best military in the world\" fleeing Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson since this war began. Fixing corruption is in the interest of all nations and is completely outside of why I think Russia invaded Ukraine.\nI'm torn as to whether Russia is making good use of limited resources by cutting the power in Ukraine. Seems really short sighted that they are working on hurting civilians rather than eliminating military targets. This is the same mistake Germany made in WWII by attacking London rather than manufacturing centers. Analysis of WWII suggests that if Germany had attacked manufacturing centers over London, they would have had much more success over defeating Britain. Likely the same is true with Russia's decisions to attack the electrical grid over much better targets.", ">\n\nI don’t think that Russian outright victory is a foregone conclusion, no. I think that ship has basically sailed unless something drastic changes\nBut I do think that Ukraine will probably have a much harder time advancing now that they’ve pushed out the Russians from Kherson and around Kharkiv. Those were the two most obviously vulnerable places for the Russians; the only place left now is zaporozhia, and it’s been so far a complete bloodbath stalemate. \nThe Russian economy has its weaknesses, but it started from a much better position than Ukraine. Ukraines economy is pretty poor. Warfare and missile bombardment dont help matters either, and military aid is always less of a sure thing than domestic production.\nThe problem for Ukraine is that russias numbers are from now on out going to increase with the “partial mobilization” that started. Now, I think that Russia doing more of those will be very costly for the Russian economy, and might mean a more unstable domestic situation in Russia. But Russia has a manpower pool that dwarfs Ukraine’s by several times. Russia’s historical strength has never been in wars of quick decision; they’ve been in wars of attrition. \nI think the most likely outcome is a stalemate in the short term and a long term Russian attritional partial victory. I’d say this is a comparable moment to the replacement of voroshilov by timoshenko in the winter war. The Russians have learned lessons and are now biding their time in order to strike more effectively in the future.", ">\n\nYeah, the one area the Russian's can win is attritional victory IF they manage to avoid economic defeat. Do you see the possibility that they'll be able to outlast economic demise and even be willing to push themselves this close to collapse knowing that even after this war is \"won\" they'll need to continue throwing money into maintaining their gains and likely face many more years of bitter relationships with much of the richest nations in the world?", ">\n\nDo we know they’re all that close to economic collapse? I mean Russia has faced economic collapse before, many times in fact. Compare what they’re going through right now to 1998, or even 2014. They’re doing much better now. What indications are there that they’re about to collapse economically?", ">\n\nI included that in the points I made in the original post. I didn't expand upon the extensively, but they're in a war which is expensive, had to unexpectedly fight a near peer military backed by some of the largest economies in the world, had to mobilize for the first time since wwii, their primary economic industry is facing massive embargoes on top of falling prices even for those willing to buy their resources, half of all the money they set aside for this war was unexpected frozen by the west, and of course sanctions in general which affect both economy and the military. It is hard to compare this situations to previous since those we strictly natural economic issues. This is military and political on top of and leading to economic issues. I can't cite a single time in history a nation as powerful as Russia has faced such a concerted effort to take them down economically and militarily in a proxy war. I mean, imagine if during the Vietnam War the whole world sanctioned the US while supplying Vietnam with weapons more advanced than our own in quantities we simply couldn't match due to the sanctions. That is what Russia is facing. If they manage to get through this without any major economic impact I'll have to rethink my entire understanding of economic warfare" ]

[ "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?\nThe 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. \nBut 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.", ">\n\nI'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.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.\nHowever, 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.\nPeter did predict that the Russians would invade the Ukraine due to the geography and defensiveness of the Russian frontiers.", ">\n\nThe way I see it, Ukraine has many advantages going forward, but there are still weak spots for both sides.\nOn both sides, one of the biggest unknowns seems to be on the political front.\nCan 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.\nZelensky, 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.\nAs 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.", ">\n\nSame 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.\nThere are definitely a lot of variables that go into what the end results will be.", ">\n\nHonestly, I think the framework in which you view your post is worth looking at. \nFirstly, I would identify 4 distinct camps of people in the western/U.S. centric world: \n\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Ukrainian (or western) propaganda\nPeople who completely/blindly buy into Russian (and their allies) propaganda\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but support Ukraine\nPeople who try to be as objective as possible, but do not support Ukraine\n\nSince 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.\n___________\nSecondly, 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:\nBEFORE 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. \nHOWEVER, 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. \nToday, 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: \n\nUkrainian surrenders (0% chance, unless 2/3)\nThe U.S.A. would have to stop supporting Ukraine. \nThe West decides to stop sanctioning Russia.\n\nAnd Ukraine losing a war because America doesn't want to fund it, isn't indicative of an \"inevitable Russian victory\"", ">\n\nThanks 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!", ">\n\nIt is certainly too early to believe that Ukraine will win at the moment. Anything could happen in war and politics. \nBut 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...\nWhich makes me a bit curious what debate you watched.", ">\n\nIt'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.\nhttps:// you tu.be /1SMoNfyvEb0", ">\n\nWhat about a pyrrhic Russian victory?\nThe 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.\nYes, that’s not a total Russian victory with regime change - but it’s several of Russia’s key objectives.", ">\n\nYeah, 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.", ">\n\nSo. 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. \nThe 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. \nIt 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.", ">\n\nMy 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.", ">\n\nThere 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. \nWhat I'm saying about the land, is war isn't like that, three months, things are \n 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.\nUkraine 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. \nThe Ukranians aren't strongenough to hurt Russia that much, for Russia this is an optional war, for Ukraine it is a war for existence.\nI 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. \nBut it is most important to view your moral causes factually.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree we should view our beliefs factually!\nI 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.\nMaybe 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nTHis isn't supposed to sound like a cop-out, but, we'll see what happens. \nI 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. \nPropaganda 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.", ">\n\nI would like to change your view from this opinion to \"no opinion.\"\nAnd 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?\nYou can literally just wait until the conflict is concluded. Unless you work in foreign policy, you don't need one", ">\n\nYou'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.\nAll 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\n\" 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.\"\nIs that the behavior of a good person?", ">\n\nYes. 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.", ">\n\nEvidence that extends to things that are only intellectual curiosities like it is for the OP?", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe easiest way then to minimize negative surprises is to not care about the outcome to the point it causes a negative reaction.", ">\n\nThat's empirically not correct.", ">\n\nI'm unconvinced", ">\n\nThat's fine.", ">\n\nWho else besides Russians believe that it's a foregone conclusion that they will win? I don't hear that in any circles.", ">\n\nThe 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\nAlso, 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.", ">\n\nCan you provide some information on Germany reviewing it's economic relationship with Russia?\nIf 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.", ">\n\nAfter 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. \nRegarding 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 !\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nI'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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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.\nOf 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.\nThe 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.\nUkraine 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.", ">\n\nI 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...\nJoining 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.", ">\n\nI'd say Ukraine, Russia, the west, and the world may have seen this all coming, but they all misjudged it badly.", ">\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that. \nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\nIt will take a lot of effort to get them out. \nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what? \nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.", ">\n\n\nRussia’s primary objective is to open water supplies to Crimea that Ukraine shut off after the 2014 invasion. They did that.\n\nIf this was their primary objective they sure laid out a terrible plan to do so. Also where are you getting this from? All the official sources claims that it is to either: Defeat the nazis in Ukraine, Save the Russians in Ukraine, Defeat the satanists in Ukraine or make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO. None of them actually lays out any military objectives. \n\nRussia seems content to dig in and hold the ground they currently occupy, and doesn’t seem interested in taking much more.\n\nBased on what? Russia still keeps attacking Ukrainian position and daily tries to take more land. That coupled with the fact that they are gearing up for a new offensive goes directly against this idea. A conflict where one sides loses 40+ pieces of equipment (Tanks, trucks, APC's etc) is not a conflict where they have dug down.\n\nIn the meantime, who can sustain the fight longer? The US and Europe aren’t going to send them aid forever. The US is one Republican president away from cutting them off. Then what?\n\nWhy would the US and Europe stop sending aid? So far all of the aid sent to Ukraine by the US is under 5% of their military budget and what Europe has sent amounts is pretty much just old and second hand cold war tech. They have not even started actually aiding Ukraine with stuff that is critical to Europe yet. And even a new and lets say pro-russian president in the US is 2+ years away and the conflict is not even a year old.\n\nI won’t say the Ukrainians can’t possibly win. But it doesn’t look good.\n\nIt looks far far better for Ukraine than it does for Russia at the moment. Russia is losing equipment at a completely unsustainable rate and cannot replenish those capabilities in the near future.", ">\n\nOn the one hand, Ukraine unlocked the unlimited free money cheat by offering Biden & friends kickbacks.\nOn the other hand, Russia knocked out power for like half of Ukraine and it's January next week.\nI think you're right in that it's silly for anyone younger than the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to think this is all over not even a year after it started, but Ukraine shot missiles into Poland and tried to false flag everyone into WW3. The rabble isn't happy about supporting this proxy war.", ">\n\nI think you're overstating what happened in Poland. Those were anti-missile missiles that fell into Poland. Ukraine didn't aim for Poland. There was like a 4-6 hour period where people were pointing the finger at Russia, but it didn't exactly take that long to figure out what really happened. This isn't any different than when Russia blew up their own pipeline and pretended to be all hot and bothered about it for like 5 minutes until everyone figured out Russia did it themselves. It is a dangerous game and everyone is playing their part, but there hasn't been a legitimate false flag attempt to start WW3 by either side IMO. Just half hearted attempts to gain sympathy, support, and attention that lasts until the next news cycle.\nI won't dispute the corruption that plagued Ukraine and Biden's role in it. Russia obviously has serious corruption themselves as witnessed by their \"2nd best military in the world\" fleeing Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson since this war began. Fixing corruption is in the interest of all nations and is completely outside of why I think Russia invaded Ukraine.\nI'm torn as to whether Russia is making good use of limited resources by cutting the power in Ukraine. Seems really short sighted that they are working on hurting civilians rather than eliminating military targets. This is the same mistake Germany made in WWII by attacking London rather than manufacturing centers. Analysis of WWII suggests that if Germany had attacked manufacturing centers over London, they would have had much more success over defeating Britain. Likely the same is true with Russia's decisions to attack the electrical grid over much better targets.", ">\n\nI don’t think that Russian outright victory is a foregone conclusion, no. I think that ship has basically sailed unless something drastic changes\nBut I do think that Ukraine will probably have a much harder time advancing now that they’ve pushed out the Russians from Kherson and around Kharkiv. Those were the two most obviously vulnerable places for the Russians; the only place left now is zaporozhia, and it’s been so far a complete bloodbath stalemate. \nThe Russian economy has its weaknesses, but it started from a much better position than Ukraine. Ukraines economy is pretty poor. Warfare and missile bombardment dont help matters either, and military aid is always less of a sure thing than domestic production.\nThe problem for Ukraine is that russias numbers are from now on out going to increase with the “partial mobilization” that started. Now, I think that Russia doing more of those will be very costly for the Russian economy, and might mean a more unstable domestic situation in Russia. But Russia has a manpower pool that dwarfs Ukraine’s by several times. Russia’s historical strength has never been in wars of quick decision; they’ve been in wars of attrition. \nI think the most likely outcome is a stalemate in the short term and a long term Russian attritional partial victory. I’d say this is a comparable moment to the replacement of voroshilov by timoshenko in the winter war. The Russians have learned lessons and are now biding their time in order to strike more effectively in the future.", ">\n\nYeah, the one area the Russian's can win is attritional victory IF they manage to avoid economic defeat. Do you see the possibility that they'll be able to outlast economic demise and even be willing to push themselves this close to collapse knowing that even after this war is \"won\" they'll need to continue throwing money into maintaining their gains and likely face many more years of bitter relationships with much of the richest nations in the world?", ">\n\nDo we know they’re all that close to economic collapse? I mean Russia has faced economic collapse before, many times in fact. Compare what they’re going through right now to 1998, or even 2014. They’re doing much better now. What indications are there that they’re about to collapse economically?", ">\n\nI included that in the points I made in the original post. I didn't expand upon the extensively, but they're in a war which is expensive, had to unexpectedly fight a near peer military backed by some of the largest economies in the world, had to mobilize for the first time since wwii, their primary economic industry is facing massive embargoes on top of falling prices even for those willing to buy their resources, half of all the money they set aside for this war was unexpected frozen by the west, and of course sanctions in general which affect both economy and the military. It is hard to compare this situations to previous since those we strictly natural economic issues. This is military and political on top of and leading to economic issues. I can't cite a single time in history a nation as powerful as Russia has faced such a concerted effort to take them down economically and militarily in a proxy war. I mean, imagine if during the Vietnam War the whole world sanctioned the US while supplying Vietnam with weapons more advanced than our own in quantities we simply couldn't match due to the sanctions. That is what Russia is facing. If they manage to get through this without any major economic impact I'll have to rethink my entire understanding of economic warfare", ">\n\nwell i think the obvious comparison is in 2014, when they invaded crimea, and were put under sanctions. their economy lost almost a third of its value in a year, the ruble's value collapsed by half, foreign investments collapsed by 92%. and those sanctions were far more minor and targeted than the ones they're facing right now. today, the russian economy has decreased less than it did during covid; 4% in total for the year. this is far, far less than what happened in 2014, much less than the catastrophe in 1998. the ruble barely fell at all in total for the year, from 77 rubles to a dollar to 74. foreign investment never recovered from 2014; the economy has shifted to state ownership again. the russian economy today is more durable. at least in the short term. \ni don't think the ukrainian military is a peer to the russian military, not really anyway. i don't think that ukraine could've pulled off an invasion of russia in the same way russia did to ukraine. ukraine is fighting a defensive war on its own turf. even without the massive intel and materiel aid its getting, that would be a situation where it would have the advantage by default. \nthe oil market is something that is different now than it was in 2014. i think we've seen that OPEC is quite willing to buck the US and continue to cut production to boost prices, directly contrary to what the US wants, and concerns over covid's return and more inflation might keep the prices where they are, or back up again. in 2014, the russian invasion meant that the US was able to use its power to basically slash the price of oil as a weapon. it doesn't have that leverage now, for whatever reason. \nhalf of their foreign currency assets have been frozen, but the russian central bank has been stockpiling foreign currency for a long time now; they have one of the largest stockpiles of it in the world. they have quite the piggy bank, even with half of it frozen. \ni think that the ukraine support effort might seem overwhelming to someone attuned to social media and western news, but it isn't. the west doesn't want to give ukraine so much that a significant portion of it would be sold abroad. ukraine is still an extremely corrupt country, along with russia its one of the most corrupt in the world. the opposition to russia is also very much based in the west; europe and the US in particular. non-western countries have been far less enthusiastic about picking sides in the war, with good reason. \nthe sanctions are having a very negative economic effect this is undoubtable. but what it isn't is catastrophic for russia. i do not think the russian economy is on the way to collapsing." ]

[]