I consider the Vietnam war to be a tie… but perhaps that’s just me. The Americans could’ve won the war fairly easily — they’re a nuclear nation and Vietnam aren’t. Given the sheer mismatch in size and capability, a draw looks like a loss. I don’t think Italy did surrender to the Ethiopians — but their Government collapsed after the battle of Adwa and this could be considered a loss.

I suspect you’re right about the Spanish war of succession — but that’s why the terms of victory need to be outlined before a war begins. That’s what America failed to do in Vietnam and again Afghanistan. Compare and contrast with the British in the Falklands. If you have a clear end-point rathe than some vague notion of ‘spreading democracy’ or ‘defeating communism’ then you’ve got more of a chance of winning. I don’t think Putin has a fixed goal — and if he did, he’s rapidly losing it. The Ukrainians have their idea of victory and it’s getting Russians out of the country — and so I suspect the Ukrainians will meet their victory requirements when the Russians withdraw — but that doesn’t mean the Russians lose the war. If we really want to see Russia lose the war, there will need to be a regime change in Russia.

I can see Russia potentially having a pop at Israel — I can see Russia accidentally shelling Poland or Finland. I can see a lot of different routes to escalation which could occur. I think NATO would push back on that — but I wouldn’t be certain about where India sit, where China sit, or what Turkey and Hungary might do. A full conflict in Europe rather than a European conflict. Back to the dark days of the Second World War — this time with tactical nukes. Kissinger will be delighted.