Who's winning the war in Ukraine?
Who's winning the war in Ukraine?
The media won't give me great answers to this question and I think this I trust this community more, thus I want to know from you. Also, I have heard reports that Russia was winning the war, if that's true, did the west miscalculate the situation by allowing diplomacy to take a backseat and allowing Ukraine to a large plethora of military resources?
PS: I realize there are many casualties on both sides and I am not trying to downplay the suffering, but I am curious as to how it is going for Ukraine. Right now I am hearing ever louder calls of Russia winning, those have existed forever, but they seem to have grown louder now, so I was wondering what you thought about it. Also, I am somewhat concerned of allowing a dictatorship to just erase at it's convenience a free and democratic country.
The goal posts for both sides are very, very different.
The invading Russian forces have basically failed their first goal; to fully take over Ukraine. They can now claim a minor victory by stealing more territory from Ukraine than just Crimea.
Ukraine's goal was to stop Russia from wiping them off of the map. Things appear to have changed. Their new goal is to retake all land that Russia has stolen (including Crimea).
The war has largely been at a standstill for a while, and the only times that Ukraine has been able to make progress is when the word has given its attention and resources. Since "Israel vs Hamas" is the guerre-du-jour, Ukraine seems to be getting less of both.
So I may sound like a doomer, but it's not looking good for the good guys. They have a much harder victory condition, and the resources that they have relied so far may be drying up.
There has been some good answers, but I'm not entirely satisfied with the details, so I will add my own response.
Culturally Russia sees itself as outside the rest of the world. At the very minimum, an equal to historical empires of Europe or Asia, but part of neither. It sees the USA as an ethnic mongrel with no culture or history, and hates the US power it projects globally.
Russia sees the former Soviet Union countries as property of the Rus people, and NATO involvement as outsider influence in affairs that do not concern them.
Globally, the world values stability more than they value justice or peace. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, it came after several other invasions of other former Soviet countries. There was little global response on any occasion.
Putin did expect the invasion to be fast and achieve their goals quickly. It was a mistake on his behalf.
This invasion was taken differently than any previous invasion because it upset global stability. Gas, oil and grain were traded openly with Russia and Ukraine and a war upset the market right when the world was trying to stabilise markets rocked by inflation, pandemic recovery and suppy chain problems.
The result was many countries around the world pledging military support. This was always older generation materiel which essentially costs those countries to maintain. It was the global equivalent of giving a homeless man the doggy bag you didn't want anyway.
Why did they do this? They wanted Russia to pull back, return to its 2014 lines and go back to stability so that global markets could resume. So they gave Ukraine just enough to defend itself, but not enough to win.
Why did they do this? Because the world wants stability more than peace. Of the pledges of materiel, almost none has actually come to fruition. About 1/4 of the armor promised has arrived that was promised. Ukraine continues to beg for alms (or in this case arms), and they do amazing things with the little they are given.
Western powers could arm Ukraine and it would win. They have had no problem spending trillions of dollars over decades to protect their influence. It does not in this case as the World is only just coming to terms that Russia will not stop just for stability.
Putin will cease to be leader if he pulls back. The Russian leader would be seen as weak, and the Russian culture loves a Tsar. Putin believes in luck and will continue the sunk cost in the hope that some outside factor or random event will go in his favor.
The West is already getting bored and tired of a war they aren't even fighting. There is a possibility that pro-Russian Republicans could regain office or power in the US. All Putin has to do is hold and eventually the West will even start telling Ukraine to capitulate to them.
Putin does not care how many troops he loses. Russia doesn't really care how many people it loses unless those people are from the cities. Russian culture dehumanises the poor and mixed ethnicities.
This current grinding stalemate is a direct result of world policy. The world supplies Ukraine with just enough so they don't lose, but not enough that they can win. In the meantime, the arms dealers are circling like sharks. India and China are cashing in on filling global supply gaps and taking advantage of Russias need for materiel frozen by sanctions. The hope would be that world leaders realise before it's too late that the only way Ukraine can win, is that if Russia loses.
Right now I am hearing ever louder calls of Russia winning
Winning was taking over the county at first. Then it was kherson, and donbass, crimea, and a few others. Now it's just like 3 areas. If you're hearing anything about winning it's because the goal posts are moving.
Youtuber Perun had some good high level takes on the war. It all boils down to Western support will win. As long as support keeps coming from the rest of the world, eventually Russia will run out of material. WW2 was won (not wholly, but in large part) due to the larger economy being on the allies side.
It's mostly a stalemate for now. The dam destruction helped Russia funnel Ukraine counterattack on its biggest fortifications, so not much progress for Ukraine in the south. Russia resumed its offensive in the Dombass and Aavdiivka is starting to look like the new Bhakmut.
It's an attrition war and Russia is losing like 2 or 3 times as much as Ukraine in men or material. But Russia has much more men than Ukraine. Russian morale is very low, but Ukraine support from the west is under big pressure, both from Russian propaganda and conservative/fascist political parties. This last one is the real war happening now.
Next year will be important because of the elections in the US. What happen on the battlefield is still to be seen.
It's a stalemate, largely. While Russia was massively on the backfoot earlier in the year, they mined massive swaths of eastern Ukraine before partially retreating.
Which makes it unlikely for Russia to actually have any future forward progress, but it also stymies Ukraine from doing the same except extremely slowly. There's still been several victories for Ukraine over the past few months, but they haven't changed the fighting area much.
It's largely a war of attrition to wear down Russia now, who has been having more and more internal issues as time goes on.
As others have said, it's a war of attrition. There's no end in sight. As it stands, we can only speculate on who is winning. Russia have so far failed to make any significant gains, and Ukraine have so far failed to push the Russians out.
It's a bit like the stalemates of trench warfare in WW1. Something will have to give eventually.
I'd say the only ones winning are those selling stuff to Ukraine and Russia. I also remember a panel some months ago, about how the other EU countries will help rebuild Ukraine once the war is over. To me, it looked like they were already slicing the not even dead body in order to profit off it.
Ukraine as a whole is at a bigger loss, given all the infrastructure damage and population losses, this one counting both deaths and people fleeing the country.
You probably shouldn't be getting your news from randos on the internet. Literally anyone can post here.
The media won't give you "an answer". Is a war like a board game where everyone can see the pieces and count the score according to the rules? What is Russia objective? Idk. Are they meeting it? Sure, to some degree. At what cost? We'll we only have a small sense of the costs.
Is Ukraine "winning"? Well they have lost so much but not everything. Are they meeting their objectives? We'll their state didn't fall. That's good.
And you just want some OP ED at NYT to just sum it up like it's a football game?
Well Ukraine itself is definitely losing. They will probably lose territory to Poland as well if this keeps up and they have sold their country out to capitalists, mostly Americans. Loans, land, industries, etc all to pay for "their" war effort. The common Ukrainian is who suffers the most under this. They will be more exploited (paid less for the value of their labor), see more social programs dismantled, and go into a serious recession/depression that may not lift for decades.
Russia is doing okay. The US is pulling Europe more into its orbit (making them pay more for less from the US while losing a lot of their industry), which is a loss for Russia, but that was the remand endgame of the US anyways. What was surprising, at least to some, was the extent to which Russia could survive and even thrive when subjected to the most significant financial weapons the West has. Overall their economy is certainly in a better place now and a chunk of Ukraine will be theirs and the other chunk will be weak. This is a victory for the ruling class of Russia and its overall geopolitical self-interest.
The US ruling class is making out like bandits as usual, funding its weapons industry, basically a cash injection for the owner class and the only thing the US ever reliably does (threaten its chosen enemies with destruction).
Usa has been diverting its weapons supplies to its holocaust in palestine. Most of ukrainian weapons production is in the east, which is no longer under their control. I'd assume they will run out of weapons sooner or later.
Well, you're going to get different responses, many of which are good points, and depending on the person you asked.
But imo, it is hard to tell. And the best response we can say is: we don't know. Ukraine retook many territories but so has Russia. Both sides suffered many casualties. The problem with analysing the war is the white noise coming from emotional responses on the events of the war happening at the time.
When Ukraine was invaded, everyone thought they will capitulate. They didn't. Kyiv then retook Kharkiv Oblast, everyone thought Russia will surrender. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was hyped, but disappointed many. Prigozhin tried to coup Putin and thought it is the end of Putin, but they're still here.
So, the best response to your question is, we don't know. And that's the most certain answer you could get and that is not a bad thing. For those who tend to forget, we still have the fog of war shrouding our vision. We don't know what will happen in many months to come. Hindsight only tends to be 20/20 after an event.
However, I think the two major considerations for this year is 1. Ukraine had been effective in interdicting Russian logistical lines and sent the Russian Black Sea fleet reeling away from Crimea. Those are Ukrainian strategic gains that are often forgotten and not seen by the mainstream as important, who see ground combat as more important. 2. Though on the other side, the Russian support for Putin is still strong and either they support the war or ambivalent. In this case, Putin won the hearts and minds of Russians to either support or turn a blind eye to the conflict. Propaganda war is as important as military one to convince enough of the public to support it.
Russia. It's a war of attrition and Russia has the manpower and industrial capacity
the west didn't misread the situatiom because the west doesn't care about Ukraine they just wanted to kill people
It's considered a positional stalemate, and that is politically advantageous for Russia. Both parties have been able to set up considerable defensive positions, making progress extremely costly. Both parties are still fighting for progress nonetheless, where Russia has the most trouble achieving it and Ukrainian forces are making small gains (field by field) on a consistent basis. But knowing that the frontlinie is many miles deep and there is intense trench warfare to make a few yards progress... There will be no swift or decisive victory on either side.
Putin has most of his followers convinced that he is fighting nato backed nazis. So even when Russian war tactics are brutally inefficient and the losses in personell and equipment are enormous, there is little internal political backlash. Internationally the conflict is seen as a regional dispute. Since Ukraine isn't a part of a large international alliance. Western sanctions on Russia aren't as impact full as they could have been.
It's looking likely that the war in Ukraine is going to last a very long time. With guerilla attacks on Russian territory becoming more likely and higher in frequency. Russia doesn't have the equipment left for large scale invasions, doesn't have the money to create meaningful reserves. And the kremlin needs defensive power in other places along its border.
European and western sentiment is that Putin will not stop until the old ussr borders are back under his control. And being securely and unquestionably positioned as world superpower.
The arm industry and drone makers
I’ve been following along daily, have an army background so take from that what you will.
I think Russia is winning the war, strategically. They are losing a small amount of ground, but there’s no breakthrough and every day that goes by in the current state is a day closer to a fragile peace deal that secures Russia’s winnings. I think anything beyond Krim is just buffer zone. This is fundamentally about securing access to ocean - Russia is extremely constricted in getting its navy to sea.
With a frozen war Ukraine won’t be admitted to NATO - in that way, I think Russia is content to have a frozen conflict, because it creates a weak buffer state between Russia and NATO.
So in terms of securing its desired outcomes, Russia is winning.
The capitalist class in the USA is winning the war. Russia is surviving, and Ukraine is losing. The goal of the war is to launder as much tax payer money from working class USA and Europeans to the political elite and their friends as possible. They do this by purchasing weapons from their own capitalists using tax money. The capitalists then share the money with the bureaucracy that facilitates the money laundering. The secondary goal is to subjugate Russia, and failing that, hurt them as much as possible so that they can be subjugated in the future. Subjugating Russia is necessary because Russia's military power is regularly used against the interests of the capitalist class in the USA.
Russia should have had the conventional phase all finished in a couple months, so by that measure Ukraine. Russia has also lost territory the whole way past the battle of Kiev, so by that measure also Ukraine. Neither look set to win any time soon, so by that measure (which is probably the important one) it's a stalemate. The big variables now are Western support and Russian political stability as the conflict drags on. Neither side is close to running out of men.
The claims that Russia was winning the whole time come from basically the geopolitical version of flat earthers, who believe exactly the opposite of what everyone else does. Or actual Russian agents, but as far as I can tell that's rare.
Unlike everyone here, I have no idea.
Tbf the guy that said arms dealers is 100% correct.
My opinion is that Ukraine has a light-moderate advantage right now.
It mainly comes down to American and EU politics. If both aid packages pass, then Ukraine is in a good position to build up over the winter and continue slowly pushing to cut off Crimea, which is the biggest prize. Steadily growing air power is going to make a significant difference, we already saw recently how helpful Russia's re-emerging air power was in grinding down the push across the Dnieper.
As an American I'm fairly confident our aid package will eventually pass. Tying it to Israeli aid is a punch below-the-belt, the repubs can't back away from that. They're in negotiations currently, probably stalling. Israel could really use that aid though...
My understanding of the EU aid is Hungary is being a pain, but there's other tricks available in a big bureaucracy, so we'll see. Maybe a European can fill that part in better.
Militarily the Russians are slowly and steadily pushing in the east. There's nothing terribly important over there, but land is land, towns are towns. Their troop losses are high but they also have a high intake supposedly, so it's possible they can keep this up for awhile. War materiel is continuously exhausting though, people may have noticed they are not shooting nearly as much artillery as they were in the initial parts of the war. But, you don't actually need tanks and heavy equipment and shit per se, so, it's a grinder. Their war support is starting to crack, but is still strong. They might have more mines than Ukraine does Ukrainians, so that's annoying too.
The Ukrainians are digging in. Or at least that's how it seems, they can be a little tricksey sometimes. They're still ramping up though, building more forces. They have plenty of will and soldiers and grain, but need more money and materiel. The capture of the Russian side of the Dnieper was impressive though, that probably shouldn't have happened. If they get the resources, they can probably win.
Oh, and the railroad between China and Russia blew up. No idea how that might've happened... Was the only one though.
It's not a stalemate, but it's close. Ukraine keeps gaining ground, but it's essentially ww1 style trench warfare.
Russia has reportedly been losing as much as 900 soldiers per day which is staggering.
The Russians mined everything like crazy when retreating so and forward progress is going to be quite measured.
me
No one and both.
Sounds weird, but both countries would have developed better without the war. So no one.
But also both, because it will probably result in a situation in which both parties celebrate victory. The smallest possible victory for Russia could be "we defeated a few 'Nazis'" and the smallest possible victory of Ukraine could be "They took only parts of our land".
did the west miscalculate the situation by allowing diplomacy to take a backseat and allowing Ukraine to a large plethora of military resources?
a large plethora of military resources
No. The West failed to provide Ukraine with sufficient military resources. While the monetary value of military aid may seem substantial when compared to your bank account, the reality is that Russia possesses greater resources and capabilities.
It's mostly a war of attrition now, whoever can hold the stalemate longer than the other before everything unravels will win.
It's stalemate at the moment. It's a waiting game for Western support of Ukraine to drop or for something domestically in Russia to fail.
Seems like a stalemate at the moment but it could really go either way from what I can tell. It depends upon if the west will lose interest and cut back on support or if public opinion in Russia wanes towards wanting an end to the war. At the moment it seems neither side is willing to accept the current status quo.
"Defense" companies naturally.
Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin shareholders. BAE and Rheinmetall investors are probably doing well, too.
Seems Russia is slowly grinding out Ukraine and if Russia decides to give up at any point or Ukraine negotiates then russia will probably have gained territory.
I don't think either side will be able to decisively beat the other, but that's not how these things usually end anyway.
Actually, I think it's pretty funny in a sad sort of way that Americans don't get how this is going to go. It's really obvious that Ukraine doesn't need to win, they just need to keep fighting until Russia goes home. Western aid isn't even really making much of a difference in the eventual outcome of the war, it's just reducing the damage that Russia is doing to Ukraine and bring that inevitable end closer faster. We've seen over, and over, and over again that once a group of people actually make up their minds to resist, there is nothing that can stop them. Even if the aggressor can bring overwhelming military superiority they will eventually give up and go home, and Russia can't even do that.
The question isn't who will win. The question is how many war crimes will Putin commit before admitting he lost this war in the second week.
From what I've heard, Ukraine is very slowly taking back strategic locations. At the moment, they're better equipped than the invaders, but that could change if Russia secures a weapons deal with China or NK. Ukraine also has a wide support (monetary, humanitarian, and military) from western nations. Ukraine has the advantage in the quality of their warfare, Russia in the quantity of meat sacks they can throw at the front.
In my opinion, even if Russia somehow occupies all of Ukraine (which I find unlikely), they will be a pariah nation for many decades. A significant part of their economy is energy export (fossil and nuclear) and the EU is already trying to separate itself from that energy dependence.
Russia is successfully and deservedly shitting on all of NATO's weaponry, warfare and weapon manufacturing capabilities. They won the war long ago, now it is just being dragged. I see a lot of western liberal liars in comment section.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/us/politics/russia-sanctions-missile-production.html
Also, I am somewhat concerned of allowing a dictatorship to just erase at it’s convenience a free and democratic country.
Last I checked, Russia did not erase any country. However, Blackrock, a private US firm, is acquiring and selling Ukraine's land. You should be worried about US/NATO-backed Israel terrorist state that is genociding and erasing the country of Palestine.
I'm not qualified to speak on this. It is however my opinion that in war, nobody wins, but military suppliers make bank.
To answer "who's winning" can vary based on what "winning" is looks like, or what the goals were. As others have pointed out those goals have changed over time.
For a play by play recap I listen to Denys Davydov... He seems upfront about both Ukranian and Russian victories in his analysis based on various video, image and map reports, even if he supports the Ukraine side.
Well Russia holds a good amount of Ukrainian land. The fighting is essentially a stalemate. Russia may have "won" that land.
No one may win any more sizable land moves. For future fighting we'll have to see. Ukraine relies on Western support because Russia is a bigger economy and bigger population. We'll have to see how Western support continues and how the Russian economy proceeds with sanctions.
I tend to think as well that the situation in Ukraine is currently a stalemate. The fact is that, while Russia is losing weapons, Ukraine is gaining them. There's also a different quality of life for Western weapons compared to the Russian ones because, well, that's something that the West actually cared for back in the Cold War days. USSR and its satellites only cared about meeting the 5-year quota, or whatever they cared for in order to show the West they were more industrialized and whatnot. Western weapons are also more accurate and tends to integrate more hi-tech inside, so that you can use them for one-strike-one-kill instead of carpet bombing large swaths of land until nothing moves there. This is why, e.g. you have Grad systems with around 42 projectiles or so, all usually being fired in chain, while on HIMARS you only have a maximum of 6 projectiles, which are usually fired individually.
All this now proves vital for Ukraine, as it has to fight a country with a larger manpower, a larger (pre-war at least) stock of vehicles and a larger stock of ammunition. Ukraine, however, did not manage to become a powerful force on the counter-offensive. It does a great job at hardening Russian attacks, causing incredible amounts of damage for every inch of land lost, but the required weaponry for a successful breakthrough has been in short supply. Besides that, what Ukraine initially planned to do was to do a combined arms attack. And you cannot do this without a good amount of air support - which Ukraine was and is currently lacking.
IMO, it remains to be seen what will happen when Ukraine will finally start to operate F-16 jets (among other equipment it started to build in-house like drones), but as of now, on the equipment and fighting side, Ukraine is currently winning. On the loss side, while Russia loses more people and equipment than Ukraine, I'm afraid the numbers are proportionally the same for both sides. This is why I see it as heading to a stalemate in the foreseeable future. But Russia can no longer win what it initially planned, it is constantly changing the objectives in order to show the world that it achieved something, and Ukraine simply cannot lose. Russia's only advantage right now is being on the offensive itself.
Frankly, we don't really know yet because we can't predict what either side will do, or what concerns/problems are boiling away under the surface.
What's important about real world events is that they are not like a board or video game. In a video game it doesn't matter if you flawlessly KO your opponent or win by the tiniest sliver of health, a win is a win.
In the real world though the resources and lives poured into conflicts like these can very well be used for something more productive. At any moment russia could swallow their pride and pull out, but they could also fight to the last man to never admit defeat.
Additionally the methods of victory differ between Ukraine and her allies (the west).
The US and Europe want a swift victory to garner support from voters. So they push Ukraine to do risky offensives and maneuvers.
Ukraine on the other hand wants to play its cards very carefully. Right now they recognize for every Ukrainian casualty, there are multiple Russian casualties. They want to maintain that postive ratio and do not want risky or loss heavy offensives. You can see this mindset at work in Bahkmut. The west wanted Ukraine to pull out of Bahkmut immediately but Ukraine recognized the extremely favorable casualty ratios, with many Russian casualties for each Ukrainian which is why they held on so stubbornly. It wasn't to hold Bahkmut, it was to grind down the Russian force.
My thumbs are dying so I'll direct you to a very accurate and detailed source of info on the conflict. Check out William spaniel on YouTube, he is an author and has many videos on the conflict, outlining the goals and problems on each side.
The war is largely in a stalemate at the moment. Odds are, if this continues for years longer, Russia will eventually win just by virtue of having more people to send to die for the country, but if it comes to that, Russia will suffer far moreso than they already are, both due to increased strikes within Russia and just loosing the majority of their working population.
At the moment Ukraine is winning.
When Trump is crowned GEOTUS, after the Repubs win 2024 ( the economic rug-pull in 2024 will remove the Dems, through backlash-vote ) then the tide will turn, as the gutted remains of NATO/OTAN try to understand how to endure as the TOTAL global geopolitcs table got thrown, violently, on its side, scattering all the playing-pieces, all the indicators, EVERYthing gets flipped, then.
GEOTUS Trump will back Russia & Saudi Arabia, both.
Possibly China, as well ( he does have investments in China ).
The remains of the Western-cultures' alliance are then on their own.
US Civil War Part2 will probably destroy about a quarter billion lives in North America within 14y,
and ww3 begins a mere 7y after Trump's crowning ( +/- 1 year ).
Things are going to be VERY tough in Eastern Europe, with the US pouring its support into exterminating the former Soviet Bloc countries who oppose Putin/Russia, with the US backing Russia.
Wait & see.
It's going to be hell, on Earth, for almost-all of this century.
The drastically quicker-than-simulated sea-level-rise isn't going to help, particularly since Greenland's meltwater will drown the North Atlantic coasts ( it takes 1000 years for it to redistribute to near Australia. The 1st few centuries it'll be predominantly drowning the West ), and when you add enough water to raise the PLANET's sea-level by 1 metre, but you put it ALL in the North Atlantic...
it may well be 3m around the North Atlantic, this century.
( there is a powerlaw underlying planetary heating, current atmospheric CO2 requires the planet to equilize at more than +5C.
When you add-in the anthrogenic methane, as CO2 equivalent, the planetary equalization temperature is more than +8C.
All the "+1.5C" and "+2C" are baseless delusions, contradicted by historical data of the last couple million years. )
Anyways, eyes-open, calibrate, prepare, & earn making oneself competent for what is guaranteed to come, right?
_ /\ _
Right now I am hearing ever louder calls of Russia winning, those have existed forever, but they seem to have grown louder now, so I was wondering what you thought about it.
Where are you hearing that? I have not heard that Russia is taking a pounding and so is Ukraine.
Right now, it's a stalemate.
It is a war of attrition at this point and if it drags out long enough, Russia wins because they have more people to throw at the war.
I do not think the F-16 is going to make a large difference in the war. People who never served are the ones thinking it'll change the war.
The question is how long can the Russian soldiers hold out? I do believe once Ukraine breaks through the lines will collapse quickly but they've yet to break through.
I do think NATO has done a disservice in training the Ukrainian military to fight a combined arms fight but then not supplying them with the weapons to fight a combined arms fight.
I personally think Ukraine will win but it is going to be a long fight.
Given that it is essentially a proxy war between the US and Russia, its quite possible the war could end without either side actually "winning".
Obviously the US will continue to support the war for as long as possible, and if that means turning ukraine to ash and destroying the economies of western europe, well that is a price they are willing to pay.
There are still shortages in Russia and if the gas and electricty shortages continue through winter that could be devastating in Russia. It wouldn't take that much to tip the country into chaos, what the response of the Russian govt to Ukraine would be - possibly using their really large missiles that can wipe out a whole village - is completely unknown.
We don''t really understand the mentality of the Ukraine govt. The fact that many western weapons seem to go missing before they reach the front and the coincidence of the Azerbaijan getting a pile of muntions just after deliveries to Ukraine may indicate that the aims of the Ukraine govt may not totally align with those of western europe.
Lots of idiots in this thread. The barbaric eastern threat will be dealt with.
War is never pretty, never fun not clean. Everyone involved ultimately loses and brings tragedy to the unfortunate lifes and families on both sides.
However, if we are speaking purely about "winning" as if it was a game, then the Ukraine certainly is beating Russia and winning. However a victory in a war might not mean that the people of the country won't be devastated afterwards.
I don't think Russia has any chance of winning. The only reason Russians are still in Ukraine is because the west is too pussy to ship the real guns.
This makes you wonder whether people benefit from this or its trully a valid strategy not to bug squash the bully cause they might go mental.
Either way, the war doesn't have to end through military or peace agreements. Russian economy seems to be ending first. As grim as that sounds but maybe that'll get Russians caring.
