POINT/COUNTERPOINT: How does the madness end? Seven scenarios.

Or Russia could slowly grind Ukraine down, which they've been for the whole conflict.

From the top and clockwise:

7. Nuclear apocalypse

Well, this one's simple enough. A red button gets pressed, by someone, somewhere, more red buttons get pressed: Boom. Bye-bye humans and everything else. In a rational world, it would never happen. Do we live in a rational world? You tell me. Remember: The odds of the instant incineration of you and everything you've ever known or loved may be low, but never zero. Such is the world we've built.

1. Putin drops dead / is deposed.

Here, Putin loses power in Russia somehow; doesn't particularly matter how. Without getting into the intensifying speculation over Putin's personal health: All mortal lives are finite, and all political lives have a shelf-life, too, even in dictatorships. By all accounts, the decision to invade Ukraine was Putin's and Putin's alone. Without Putin in charge, there's a likelihood that Russia simply abandons the war effort, there's a peace deal on terms fairly favorable to Ukraine and both countries attempt to rebuild normal relations. That said, a decision that started as Putin's own prerogative has acted as a catalyst that now has turned factions of Russian politics and society into being "pro-war." So, Putin's replacement could theoretically be even more of a hardliner - in which case, the Russo-Ukrainian war continues, and we move on down the wheel.

5. Russia launches nukes in Ukraine; NATO "decapitates" Russian army.

Russia drops nukes in Ukraine; NATO retaliates with a conventional military strike on Russia similar to Operation Desert Storm. Russia fails to launch its strategic nuclear weapons (perhaps Putin himself has been assassinated), key Russian military targets are systematically destroyed, Russia loses the capacity to prosecute the Ukraine War, and a global nuclear war is averted. I think an intervention is a more likely scenario than NATO simply not responding to nuclear strikes on Ukraine. And it's a more hopeful option than Scenarios 6 or 7, though any attack on Russia runs the risk of further escalation.

3. Negotiated settlement; Russia keeps some annexed land.

In a rational world, this would be the best outcome for both sides. The value of additional fighting over 15% of Ukraine's land, to either side, pales in comparison to the tremendous costs of war. But what the "peace deal" option overlooks are the constraints of both Zelensky and Putin as political actors, both of whom have staked so much upon victory. Also: Russia has a dismal history of violating its own diplomatic agreements, the most relevant of which here is the Budapest Memorandum, whereby Ukraine traded away its nuclear weapons in exchange for Russian security guarantees. Ukraine can't feel very confident agreeing to peace with Russia (and for the rest of the world to assume it's all over with) only for Russia to regroup and re-invade 6 months later. I think the odds of a true, durable peace deal while Putin remains in charge of Russia are virtually nil. For further thoughts, see Scenario 1.

4. Russia launches nukes in Ukraine; NATO doesn't respond.

Although Russia is running low on ammunition, conventional missiles, and trained, motivated troops, it has a large hitherto untapped element of its power: nuclear weapons. Putin has certainly hinted at their use, though Putin has at other times walked back those comments, and query what use it would be to Russia to conquer a destroyed and irradiated Ukraine. I won't try to parse the distinction here between a tactical nuke used in a Donbas mudfield or a strategic nuke used to flatten Kiev itself. Regardless, the use of either kind of nuclear weapon would open up a Pandora's box, an entirely new dimension of conflict in this dismal war. This scenario assumes the West doesn't respond to Russian nukes. While possible, I think the odds of a non-response are low, because taking no action in Ukraine would greenlight the use of nukes in other theaters around the world, undoing the nuclear taboo which has held since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, as well as the logic of non-proliferation. The costs of punishing Russia for violating that taboo might ultimately be less than living in a world where not only Russia but also the likes of China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and any number of other nations can simply fire nukes to get their way.

6. World War III

As Russia declines, China rises, and culture war divisions and economic malaise grip the West, there's certainly a risk of a world war taking place this century. Why not now? The Russo-Ukrainian War could end up being regarded as much of a harbinger of another World War as the Second Sino-Japanese War (which started in 1937) ended up being with respect to World War II. Apart from NATO and Russia jousting in earnest over Ukraine, there are many ways a "World War III" could start: shooting breaks out in North-South Korea, or across the Taiwan Strait, or between India-Pakistan, or between Iran and Israel/Sunni nations in the Middle East, or even another Balkans conflict (throwback to World War I). As was the case in the first two World Wars, conflict anywhere then spirals into conflict everywhere. Who knows how it ends. But, importantly, nobody presses the nuclear button. A dismal outcome, but humanity survives, and the world's nations come together to assemble a new security architecture like the League of Nations (post-WWI) or the U.N. (post-WWII). And of course, the world re-commits anew to forsake war forever: "never again." This time, for realzies. Promise.

2. NATO stops supplying military/financial aid; Ukraine is overrun.

This outcome is presently hard to envision. Western support for Ukraine remains strong, with few signs of ebbing as the war turns about 1 year old. Russia's curiously uncoordinated military appears woefully inadequate to the task of conquering all of Ukraine; Russia is currently clinging on to about 15% of Ukraine's territory. But under certain Western political configurations, abandoning Ukraine is possible, the most important of which would require a win for Trump (or another MAGA Republican with a comparable isolationist outlook) in 2024. As goes America, so goes the rest of NATO, and gradually the other alliance members also abandon providing meaningful aid. One important assumption: That Russia is capable of maintaining its commitment to the Russo-Ukrainian war until at least January 2025. But even then, the idea of Ukraine being totally overrun is fanciful. For all of MAGAworld's pro-Russia posturing, does Trump really want to be known the President who "lost Ukraine"? More likely, enough U.S./Western aid continues to flow to Ukraine to allow it to conclude a peace that leaves it mostly in charge of its territory. Which brings us to Scenario 3.