UA leadership was handed one of the biggest windfalls of any regime. Corruption is rampant around that area, Russia included.

Also, USA energy. LNG is in high demand from Europe since that pipeline providing cheap gas to Germany was blown up by someone.

China is some extent. They're getting a longer term reliable supply of lower cost gas and oil.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5306313&forum_id=2...id#46053830)

But Russia is losing in the sense that the "second most powerful army in the world" was shown to be a Potemkin village.

150,000 killed and wounded Russian soldiers, a sunken flag ship, 1,000+ tanks destroyed, dozens of helicopters and planes shot down, and what do they have to show for it? They've captured maybe 2% of the land they didn't have before the invasion. They're losing around 2,000 soldiers per week killed/wounded to make glacial progress and then that progress gets erased every time Ukraine launched a counteroffensive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5306313&forum_id=2...id#46049593)

However if you reframe the objectives as depopulating Ukraine and leaving a diminished state that is unable to govern its territory or operate a functioning economy, then the war is going pretty well for Russia. One endgame here is to agree a ceasefire when the frontline is in a decent place for Russia, then watch Ukraine flail around trying to operate for a few more decades, then grab more territory either by exporting Russians and rigging elections or invading again at a time when the West is less supportive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5306313&forum_id=2...id#46049618)

Still, you might want to look into what became of English territorial claims over area that are now squarely the northern bit of France, to the various French sub-states that allied with England against centralized French control, and to French efforts to build a North American colony. Again, wars don’t all have movie script/WW2 endings of total victory by one side.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5306313&forum_id=2...id#46054391)

CR fuck it let's just nuke Moscow already and get it over with, who would even care?

(Literally, unironically, retarded XO Ukrainecuck 90 IQ faggots)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5306313&forum_id=2...id#46053912)

1. Initial invasion: idiocy, hubris, false intel? Who knows, but Russia brought over a way-too-small force of under 200k troops, the number including all the militia, mercs, etc.

They drove through cities thinking they would be greeted as liberators.

On the other hand, UA failed to mobilize their forces despite being handed plenty of intel that Russia would invade. Russia took a lot of territory, but lost lots of resources.

2. UA mobilizes, huge fights with "decisive" engagements. Following from 1 above, RU was severly outnumbered. They refused to declare war and to mobilize more men. They left their front lines poorly manned. Which sets up for...

Two sides trade blows. UA scored some decisive victories here (Kharkiv, Kherson, Kyiv). Still came at some costs. RU scores victories in Mariupol and Severdonesk.

3. RU strikes back. Consolidates forces.

Finally calls up with partial mobilization. Wagner enters the fight, conscripts from prisons.

Front stabilizes with attrition warfare.

RU inches their way forward across the front, ever so slowly capturing towns in the Bakhmut area of operation. Bakhmut itself is currently under seige.

UA has a much hyped upcoming spring/summer offensive, expect them to try to punch through to the south, especially the city of Melitopol.

RU will be ready.

If no negotiated settlement occurs, and absent a collapse of outside funding for UA, expect this war to drag on for years.

I'm biased, and based on the current slow creep into UA territory, I expect RU to win all or essentually all of the 4 oblasts in a few years. Some area changing hands back and forth is still to be expected though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5306313&forum_id=2...id#46053847)

You'd think this would be different in the age of the internet and the free flow of information, but it doesn't seem to be. I think Russia could easily spend four years in a completely pointless war with no real casus belli, have 500,000 soldiers crippled or killed, and 90% of Russians wouldn't care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5306313&forum_id=2...id#46054071)