No. LolSo the only way you would be right is if Russia decided to go back to the original borders. That's a stalemate.
This would be a total defeat for Russia in every sense, not a stalemate.
Putin's goal is to disarm and denazify the Ukrainian regime. If, in addition to not achieving this, he loses the 17% hold and go back to the original borders, Russia will lose the entire war without achieving anything. Not a stalemate.
A 100% defeat!
You don't even know how to differentiate between a stalemate and a defeat! What type of STEM PhD are you? Lol.
I thought we agreed that the side that achieves more is the victor.
If Russia had not fought, 100% of Ukraine would be a NATO ally. That is in actuality technically within Ukraine's rights to choose. This is is the default state that we move from.
By your own logic, Russia has only achieved a 17% victory so far, while Ukraine has managed to hold 83% of armed territory and be a NATO ally.
83% is much more than 17%.
So, Ukraine is actually winning at 83% of a victory so far.
You are being contradictory! Lol
3 parts for each side would be the ideal stalemate.If what you said comes true, that Ukraine ends up in 3 partitions, one in NATO, 1 in limbo and 1 Russian, that would mean that through war, Russia took a 100% hostile Ukraine and turned it into a mini-hostile remnant of what it was, a neutral area, and a Russian territory. That is a huge net gain over what would have happened if Russia did not fight. Russia is gangster-mugging Ukraine with the "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" hammer. That is a Russian favored-solution but your mistake would be thinking that "negotiable" means stalemate.
-1 part remains armed by NATO
-1 "neutral" zone occupied by UN and NATO peacekeepers and
-1 area occupied by Russia
Ukraine would still be one of the largest European countries.
The Korean War also ended in stalemate despite North Korea having lost almost 4,000 square kilometers of territory and suffered many more casualties.
Last edited:



