Ukraine will win and UK will the host next year by proxy.
I was thinking this too. The two foregone conclusions seem to be that Ukraine will win but that they won't be hosting next year, especially as plans have to start being made as soon as the win is announced, as it takes a year to get everything in place. In fact, sadly, there's no guarantee that Ukraine will be in a position to host at all for a number of years - it's hardly going to be top of their priority list, is it?
As to where we will finish, I genuinely think that our previous hopes of triumph over adversity have been just patriotic over-optimism; but this year, the bookies (currently) have us down as coming second. Of the 25 countries in the final, 20 of them are reckoned to have a 1% chance or less of winning. Bookies don't get mega rich by not (generally) knowing what they're talking about, as they quite literally have to put their money where their mouth is.
Thinking ahead to 2023, the rules state that only up to 6 countries are automatically allowed to qualify: the host (if not one of the Big 5) and the Big 5. I suppose it partly depends on whether the country where it takes place is regarded as the (interim) host or whether it is considered that Ukraine is hosting but just in a 'borrowed' location - in the way that San Marino have stated they would hope to 'borrow' a stadium over the border in Italy, should they ever win, considering that the capacity of the Rotterdam stadium was twice as many as SM's entire population!
However, I seriously doubt Ukraine would have the financial resources anyway, let alone the obvious geographical 'issue'. Even amongst countries that are prospering and at peace as normal, the cost of hosting is a killer and a source of fear for all but the few wealthiest nations that also have sizeable populations - hence the existence of the Big 5 in the first place.
I don't think anybody would disagree that, having won in 2022 - largely as a gesture of international solidarity and support - Ukraine's qualification in the final in 2023 should be absolutely guaranteed, but they can hardly turn to the nation hosting/funding it in 2023 and deny them automatic qualification either. That suggests that, unless the rules are changed to allow 7 automatic qualifiers, the ersatz host nation will have to be one of the Big 5. I would guess that Italy might not be a contender, as hosting it two years running would mean a huge cost for them and also maybe seem unfair (should they even be willing, considering reason 1).
Therefore, I propose that the UK should step in as the ersatz host nation for 2023, for the following 5 reasons, which include an absolute minimum of 2 good ones:
- If the predictions are right, we will be the highest-placed of the Big 5;
- We have a solid history of being the default alternative host, without quibbling, when another country can't afford it/doesn't want to/is unable to - having done exactly that for Eurovision four times in the past, despite not having won the previous year, even though one of those nations pleading poverty was France!;
- Our main language is already the language of Eurovision: official rules state that all presenters and people helping with organising and hosting at all levels MUST speak English (along with, ideally, the (main) language of the host country) - and we have by far the largest pool of native English speakers to draw from;
- The (initialised) name of our country and our 'national weather' are both already included in the name of Ukraine - if that isn't an undeniable harbinger, I don't know what is;
- My family would love to attend the live event, and we don't have passports.
Case closed!!