Yeah, this is pretty clear. They lost it within the first ten days into the war, if by 'lost' you mean much worse off than not having started the war in the first place.
They still may or may not end up with Ukraine as a vassal state; that's just a question of how much Russia lost, not whether they lost.
Putin seems to believe that the 'eventual' admittance of Ukraine into NATO and potentially the EU and the placement of troops / missiles there was going to lead to the end of the Russian state as he knows it (not so much by NATO conquest but by a willingness on a future Russia's part to join the EU). So while yes by our metrics Russia is in worse shape, these are not necessarily Putin's metrics.
Putin wants to neutralize Ukraine, and he's likely done that. He wanted to turn Russia inward and away from the West, and he's definitely done that. He wants to ensure the Russian state continues into the long term without free borders or economic entanglements and he has absolutely accomplished that.
I know it makes us feel better to say 'Oh, that foolish Putin, such an idiot' but he simply may not feel that way. He may be meeting his objectives, as he sees them.
> Putin knew very well about the "uncontested borders" rule for new Nato countries
It's not a rule, it's just an excuse certain members (NATO operates on consensus, not majoritarianism) have been citing for not moving Georgia and Ukraine from “we expect them to become members at some point” to “here’s a formal Membership Action Plan”, but which hasn't been historically applied to prospective NATO members (who have been admitted with border disputes, including border disputes with other NATO countries, e.g., Spain with the UK) and which could be dropped as an objection to those two at any time with no formal change to NATO rules.
Ukraine won’t be neutralized, or occupied for a long run, simply because Russia can’t ignore the enormous cost of doing so, regardless of what Putin wants.
We’ve seen the willingness of Ukrainians to fight for their country and the amount of support they receive from the West. At some point the cost will be too much that would risk destabilizing Russia.
Distance to Moscow, primarily. The abandonment of treaties related to short-range nuclear missiles means it's possible for NATO to put nuclear armed missiles on the border between Ukraine and Moscow. There would be no time to react to a first strike, meaning MAD would no longer be in play.
Looking in the map, the Ukrainian border is 510km(320miles) away and the next NATO border is 620km(380miles) away. It does not look like a huge difference.
Even now, Nato desperately want the kind of sane Russia back instead of going all in to topple it :-|
For me it is pretty obvious Putin knew. He also knew the west would let it go if he took it in three days or so.
Luckily he got his calculations wrong, Ukrainian resistance has been amazing and the public support for Ukraine has led to some of the strictest sanctions ever applied + voluntary boycotts + roadblocks etc.
> The abandonment of treaties related to short-range nuclear missiles means it's possible for NATO to put nuclear armed missiles on the border between Ukraine and Moscow.
I see China expanding its territorial influence North following this. Maybe 30 or 50 years, longer view. A weakened and destabilized Russia will provide it much opportunity. And the Russian government will have deserved it. (Can’t say the same for the population, they seem largely carried along for the ride.)
A formal alliance is far more likely (it's basically already happening), this would mitigate the need at risking any conflict, by giving China access to that territory in exchange for economic support for Russia. And before you suggest they won't do that 'because sanctions', sanctions against China would hurt the West far more than they would hurt China, and they know it.
I'd be more concerned about Malaysia, Indonesia and so on. The dragon is far more likely to march south. And it will have a nuclear bear along for the ride.
Oh, I agree with you. Influence isn’t necessarily hostile. Russia will need China more, and China will be happy to help. Maybe not on the same crippling-predatory-loan basis that they pursue in African country.
Climate change suggests value in places more northerly and a little further from the coast. If you’re a billion people relatively densely arranged, wide open space next door looks awful nice.
These articles are silly. If the Russians gain 100% territorial control of Ukraine, they will install a puppet government made up of people powerful enough internally to manage any internal dissent. Outcome: Russia wins. Even if they only do this for Eastern Ukraine ending up with a split Kyiv and a heavily-fortified Dniper, Russia still wins. If Russia manages to create (has already happened), hold and fortify a land bridge from the Donbass down to Crimea, Russia wins. Putin will hold victory parades. Mission accomplished.
If Side A fights Side B and takes and holds Side B's territory, Side A has won, by definition. We can talk about how much it cost Side A and how difficult it will be for Side A to keep hold of that territory, and perhaps like the US in Afghanistan Russia will eventually be forced to withdraw and lose that territory. But perhaps not. It's reading tea leaves at this point and anyone claiming to know the outcome is peddling propaganda.
Obviously, you are not very familiar Ukraine, Ukrainian people, or Ukrainian history.
I'm guessing you were not present in 1991 when Ukraine declared itself independent. I am guessing you are oblivious to the very significant Russian casualty figures that are putting this as high as 50,000: 10,000 dead and 40,000 injured.
Ukraine will not cede any land, and is getting significant war material and support from the west.
Putin, quite clearly, is a modern Kaiser Wilhelm II. And I have every suspicion that he was egged on Xi because for China there is no downside. China will basically take control of Eastern Russia over the next 50 years and Russia will be China's vassle state in Europe.
Think of it this way. Russia is like IBM, and their war is like OS/2. China gave Putin tacit permission and support, but China actually has its own objectives which are served by the success or failure. And probably failure even more so.
This is nonsense. 190,000 troops cannot hold a non-compliant population of 42 million.
Strategically Russia has completely lost any ability to achieve their goals. All they can do now is punish the civilian population, and that is what they are doing. They could very well flatten the entire country, but they still will have lost the war, and failed to achieve any of their goals. They have lost all the diplomatic and economic gains they've made since the USSR fell. Who will shake Putin's hand first? That is what's meant by they have lost.
Considering the illegality of the invasion, is central to the U.N. Charter to which most countries are a signatory. Therefore the world isn't going to accept anything like a win for Russia no matter what now.
141 countries, rather overwhelming, voted for United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 declaring the invasion an act of aggression inconsistent with the Charter, condemned Russia's declaration of “special military operation” in Ukraine (because threats are also inconsistent with the charter), endorsed the view of the Secretary-General that this invasion is a repudiation of the principles that every country has committed to uphold and that the present military offensive of the Russian Federation is against the Charter. 141 countries demanded Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, further demanding that Russia immediately and unconditionally reverse their claim to Donetsk and Luhansk. And deplored the involvement of Belarus in helping Russia stage this attack.
Russia killed millions of ethnic Ukrainians in the holodomor, 1932-1933. And now this. Aside from the gross immorality on the face of it - Russia has violated treaties it's a party to. It's own word, its trustworthiness, it's ability to make a promise? It's worth less than spit. It's the worst possible violation of the U.N. Charter, and they are a founding member of it. It's a literal shredding of the Budapest memorandum. And the Geneva Conventions are also MIA. So you can pretty much expect Russia only considered contracts as an expediency. They're not binding at all on them.
This also seriously risks the unwinding of the U.N as an institution, in particular if China and India are just going to continue to sit on the sidelines with thumbs up their asses. If you do not care enough to say an obviously wrong thing is wrong, and play neutral? Well then, the Charter is rendered increasingly meaningless. And if that is true, then the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is probably next.
The terrible long term outcome of this ill conceived invasion, may be long term nuclear proliferation. Because nukes seems to be a more effective deterrent than the U.N or N.P.T. I don't see humanity refraining from using nukes for all time if nuclear proliferation takes off again. So the distillation of this war is that humanity might be doomed to engage in a 3rd world war no matter what. Avoiding that is why there's so many mental gymnastics going on right now, and stumbling like the planes from Poland thing.
They still may or may not end up with Ukraine as a vassal state; that's just a question of how much Russia lost, not whether they lost.