I heard a US military general talking on a Hardcore History podcast a few weeks back - and he talked about poorly defined conditions for victory and the scope of the war. This is what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan for the US.

Russia can win a war against Ukraine quite easily, it is a nuclear power. The US could’ve wiped Vietnam off the face of the earth in an afternoon… but they didn’t. Their public wouldn’t have stomached it. Russia is a different beast and Putin is a smart guy. We may compare him to Hitler, but I think that’s a dangerous complacency.

It may be worth considering what Putin’s conditions for victory are outside of the military offensive. Democracies fatigue at long wars, so is it regime change in the US and crashing the UN as not fit for purpose? Is it simply driving economic cost of living prices ever upwards? Russia and China can absorb public discontent but what about the British? The French? Other members of NATO? What happens with Orban or Erdogan when the public grows restless?

I’ve argued that the only way a country loses a war, is if it suffers regime change as a result… or if it unconditionally surrenders. Unless there’s a coup in Russia then Ukraine can’t win. There may be some within Ukraine who want to take the fight to Moscow. I think this would be unwise, but perhaps it’ll happen.

I think it’ll be a draw. One that looks like a loss for Russia. The same as Vietnam for the US. However, I think we need to look at the bigger picture too and think about the decade long strategy, not just the immediate military one.