No. Lol
This would be a total defeat for Russia in every sense, not a stalemate.
Russia loses nothing, Ukraine/NATO loses nothing. Stalemate. You have very different standards of victory for each side for some funny reason.
Putin's goal is to disarm and denazify the Ukrainian regime.
Instead, he ends up eating its territory directly into Russia. Above his original goal.
If, in addition to not achieving this, he loses the 17% hold
Those 18% he found; if you lose your profits, you come out even.
and go back to the original borders, Russia will lose the entire war without achieving anything. Not a stalemate.
Neither has Ukraine/NATO achieved anything. For Ukraine to arm and join NATO is its right. Keeping your right is assumed; losing it or any part of it is a loss. That's at least as much a defeat for NATO/Ukraine as it is for Russia, but more that NATO/Ukraine since they lost more men and suffered greater economic impact.
Then 200% defeat for NATO/Ukraine for economic suffering and death toll.
You don't even know how to differentiate between a stalemate and a defeat!
That's what we all think about you!
What type of STEM PhD are you? Lol.
The kind who knows how to do point-to-point. What kind of STEM PhD doesn't? None in the world; we need it to graduate.
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
Absolutely wrong. If I take 17% of your house and you keep 83%, you didn't win 83% and I win 17%. I won 17% and you lost 17%. This is a victory based on the "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" concept. Second time I told you this cus you missed it the first time. If you don't believe me, you put $1,000 on the table. I take $170 and you keep $830. You win 83% and I won only 17% so it's good for you, right? We can do this as many times as you want so you can keep winning. How's that? STEM PhD logic.
3 parts for each side would be the ideal 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.
That's a Russia profit of the occupied portion and a Ukrainian loss of that portion. That is furthermore, a lesser Russian victory through the neutral zone and a lesser defeat for Ukraine. Because without the war, all of Ukraine would be an anti-Russian NATO base, and through war, Russia took that right away from a large portion of it. Only 1 part remains able to exercise their soverign right, which is not a victory but a neutral assumption. So only Russia wins and profits; Ukraine loses; no other country profits because no other country gained ownership of any territory.
The Korean War also ended in stalemate despite North Korea having lost almost 4,000 square kilometers of territory and suffered many more casualties.
That's a stalemate cus a country got separated into 2 and niether part got incorporate into a larger entity like China, Russia, or the US.