There will be one at some point. There is no plausible scenario in which it will be favorable for Ukraine: the West missed the moment to build up military production to match and surpass Russian capacity, so there is zero chance that there will be any military wins. And sanctions don’t work, that should have been pretty clear by now to anyone who sees the numbers. It is all about damage control and how many Ukrainians will have to die before Western politicians will accept inevitable.

> There will be one at some point.

Even if that's true, the content you assume will be in it (even before considering the probability of your predicted content being wrong) may have as much bearing for Russia (or any othe nation’s) near term prospects as the eventual content of the peace deals ending the Israeli-Palestinian war or the US-North Korea war have on any nation’s near-term prospects.

Russia can sustain this war for 4 years more politically (they probably have to finish by 2029, a year before elections), maybe 2-3 years more militarily and economically. I won’t be so sure that Ukraine can last that long, because Ukraine does have people problem and Russia does not. Ukraine even with Western supplies gets a fraction of what Russia currently produces in ammo, missiles, tanks etc. So there is no reason for Russia to accept shitty terms. They may pay 200-300B from the frozen money in „reconstruction support“, but that’s it.

If there was any significant difference in their combination of industrial supply and battlefield effectiveness, the front line wouldn't be so slow-moving.

> There is no plausible scenario in which it will be favorable for Ukraine

If this is true, we're doomed. Everyone will want to have nuclear weapons in order not to end up like Ukraine. After that point it's just a matter of time until something goes wrong.

Russia must not win to avoid a nuclear war.

It is unlikely that we will see new nuclear powers. It's not an easy job. We can be sure that Israel or North Korea won't give up, but that does not mean they are going to use the weapons or there will be a full-blown intercontinental war. Looking at current progress in space tech, in 30-40 years the ultimate WMD will be kinetic space weapons anyway.

They were challenging 70 years ago, but in 2025 nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles are trivial for an industrialized nation.

North Korea and South Africa* getting nukes are both independent proofs that it's not hard for a nation to get nukes. I've seen credible commentators suggesting Ukraine itself is only months away, if it chooses that path.

Less credibly, because the Russian government says a lot that isn't really true, Medvedev has been quoted saying "a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads".

Once you've got a fission bomb, by all accounts it's not that hard to use it as a primary to power a fusion bomb.

A single 1 MT bomb detonating at low orbital altitude above central USA would likely cause enough physical damage to the power grid to kill 60-90% of the population within a year, even with no shockwave getting anywhere near the ground.

* people often forget they got nukes, they were very quiet about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...

> North Korea and South Africa* getting nukes are both independent proofs that it's not hard for a nation to get nukes

Define „hard“ then. Both started early in 1960s, both had access to uranium (North Korea is actually mining it - not every country can do that), both used foreign support for their nuclear programs. Neither achieved ICBM range to deliver nuclear warheads to any location on this planet or had submarine component. Ukraine may have theoretical ability to design and produce nuclear weapons, but it is a technologically advanced nation far ahead of many developing countries and it is not going to have resources for a nuclear program any time soon being heavily dependent on foreign aid.