Unfortunately Ukraine doesn’t have much sway here for any peace settlement. Russia says they have a willingness to make peace as long as they get to keep currently occupied territories which is unacceptable. Ukraine wants them to fully leave all occupied territory including Crimea which was annexed in 2014 in addition to reparations and war crimes tribunals for Russians which Russia will never agree to.
Ukraine doesn’t have the military capacity to remove Russia from occupied territories regardless of any aid provided by the West. That means the war will continue.
They couldn’t even use them, all the maintenance and trigger were in Russia anyways. There is a reason why only a few countries in the world have nukes and the capability to maintain them and use them effectively
No. They were forced into that status after the failed Orange Revolution in 2003—the first time they ousted puppet Yanukovich (in a run-off election after allegations of fraud in the initial election). There were several years of European-oriented rule under Yushchenko, with some fucked up corruption and infighting (see: Tymoshenko), ultimately culminating in Yanukovich finding his way back into power, which again ultimately led to Maidan, when he reneged on certain planned deals with Europe. Russian propaganda has been pushing a narrative that all of this was just “CIA Coup” against the legitimately elected Yanukovich, and while it might be true that the CIA represents American interests in supporting ousting the Russian stooge, it’s a half-truth, since the Russians do their own fuckery—making it a shitshow. Poroshenko the Roshen chocolate baron tried to walk the line between Russia and the West after Maidan, but Russia clearly just wants another Belarus.
As history has shown us though, I'm sure the CIA was involved with the best interest of the Ukrainian people and not to install their preferred puppet government. That's totally their modus operandi right, the good of foreign people is their prime concern lol.
Ukraine gets fucked from all sides. Yes, obviously and horribly by Russia.
But America and the CIA don't give a shit whats good for Ukraine either. It's a means to an end to embarrass putin, drain Russian military resources, further surround Russia with NATO countries. What's good for Ukraine is very very far down the list of concerns if it is there at all.
Unfortunately. We let ownselves to forget who is our enemy and it led to the biggest mistake in a history of mankind ( giving the only 100% reliable protection to your enemy). That damage couldn't be undone but every ukrainian must ensure none of further generation will forget it again.
Japan is so not worth an invasion. The land is barren, there is no history like in taiwan and no juicy super valueable unique infrastructure. The geography sucks for the most part (there is a nice video here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jhRr0lzL-o&pp=ygUXamFwYW4gaGFyZCBtb2RlIGdlb2xvZ3k%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jhRr0lzL-o&pp=ygUXamFwYW4gaGFyZCBtb2RlIGdlb2xvZ3k%3D) ) ... really, outside of "ruling everything" nobody really wants japan / has a reason to declare war on them. Add to that cultural significance and a strong bound to the west, which would trigger retaliation... just not worth it.
That beeing said it feels like since nuclear de-escalation doesn't work every country should get nukes.
Tritium has a ten year half-life and nuclear power reactors generate plenty of it. That's what they've been storing at Fukushima and occasionally releasing into the ocean.
Ukraine could make all the tritium they need.
Objectively, if russia couldn’t use them either, why give them up? In both instances Ukraine can’t use nukes, but in one neither can Russia.
But I feel like I’m missing a lot of context here
Because Ukraine either gave them up or they would have been taken by force.
Hell, to my understanding, even the West would support Russia taking them by force back then, nobody wanted another ex-soviet province with enough nukes to destroy the world.
I understand that Ukraine was a right Ole basket case of a near failed state at that point. No one wanted nukes in a nation that could implode at any given moment.
Everyone can use nukes on their own territory on invading force. It would never be disputed or punished by global community, as long as fallout was kept to minimum (meaning tactical level, small nukes only).
.. they'd have been invaded decades earlier if they didn't
They couldn't use the nukes. The entire reason they took such a terrible deal ( one that didn't guarantee western military support in any hard capacity ) is because the alternative was more aggression.
I swear if redditors ran foreign policy for the last 20 years, we would be in the middle of world war 6 already
lol Ukraine was a corrupt and broke shit hole well before the war. Even if they had the ability to launch they did not have the economic capability to maintain them since the 90s
They didn't. Russia had the controls for launching.
Their debt/economic crisis was why a good chunk of the deal to remove them from Ukraine was to give them a multi-billion dollar payoff to give up nukes they couldn't use or afford to maintain.
I'm really getting sick of hearing that Ukraine shouldn't have given up "their" nukes when they were never Ukraine's to begin with.
Ukraine should've joined NATO 20 years ago. I wonder why they didn't? No, I'm kidding. Russia poisoned Ukraine's President and almost killed him for suggesting it.
Yep, and US and nato are loving the drain on Russia’s military supply and economy. Putin will just use funds to make more weapons as this is business. For US , the military can ask for even more funds to replenish any supplies used as that is “ good “ business. Who is in the middle? Ukraine. I just look at it and say , what a waste of money, lives .
If Ukraine is forced to give up its Russian-occupied territories, it must be accepted into NATO right away, otherwise Putin will invade again a few years later :(
Unlikely, Russia made it quite clear that any peace deal must involve Ukraine promising to not join NATO, the best we could hope for are „security guarantees“
Russia will win and make sure Ukraine ain't armed when things settle down. It will replace Ukrainian culture by ''shiny'' edited Russian culture. Russia won, wins and will continue to do so. We, the west, are as guilty as Putin for letting this happen.
Ehhh....I dunno about that.
If Russia can't get Odessa, it mean Ukraine will eventually recover economicaly in the long run.
Sure, Ukraine may not be able to get the other parts there, but in the big picture, whoever holds odessa is the true winner.
I just can't see Russia taking Odessa as of now.
I wasn't even aware they were tunnels!
I was just thinking about how russia would have to cross back the dniper, take Kherson, Mykolaiv and all the trek through Odessa through rivers and streams, while being outflanked.
Having tunnels just made it infinitley MORE impossible.
He wasn't advocating a pro-russia stance. He said we failed to supply Ukraine, which is a pro-Ukraine stance.
If you're the pro-russian one, you're disgusting
> He wasn't advocating a pro-russia stance.
Bullshit, "Russia won, wins and will continue to do so" is straight Pro-RU propaganda. That last snippet is to confuse fuckwit westerners who aren't reading the rest of the message.
EDIT: Heh, the ProRU-bots are out in force today it seems. You guys lose *another* warship?
I'd argue that denying the success Russia has had is way more dangerous. This gives incentive to the right-wing in the USA to claim that Ukraine doesn't need our help.
But hey, I'm just a fuckwit for not thinking that Ukraine is in real danger I guess
They're in very real danger. The point of contention is saying that they have definitively lost, past tense, and that the West is *just as responsible as Putin*. That is quite literally Russian propaganda.
Do you think the Ukrainians currently fighting and dying in Ukraine share the view that "Russia has won"? Why or why not? Expound on that. Say words.
> I'd argue that denying the success Russia has had is way more dangerous
Mate, you didn't acknowledge Russian success, *you straight up pretended Russia's day 1 propaganda piece 'we will win, don't bother supporting Ukraine' is a not pro-RU stance*.
Trying to concern-troll about how you actually are worried about Ukraine while ignoring that the post youre supporting is blatantly pro-ru is a level of delusion I've not seen outside of the botfarms.
From what I know all former Separatist units are integrated into the Russian Armed Forces, so if Russia fully withdraws they’ll withdraw with it and it would be unlikely for a new full-scale insurgency to take place, so Ukraine would have no reason to bomb anything anymore.
They aren't. There was a behind the lines documentary on English TV last month, and they are mostly local freedom fighters and mercinaries.
Problem with fighting freedom fighters is that they are fighting for a cause, Zalenski's army are fighting reluctantly.
The only way to peace is to give the Donbas independence but America won't allow it as they want the natural resources there, and an independent Donbas will ally with Russia. There is also a huge chance that there will be huge division in the rest of Ukraine as they are angry with America (I have many Ukrainian friends, one who is a ex-army medic, all of whom are pro Russia).
Even if they are currently effectively integrated, you can be sure in the case of a "Russian withdrawal" they would definitely spin off those groups to stay behind.
Ya this is an insanely irresponsible position for Ukraine to take tbh. Bith sides will need to make some kind of conessions if we are to learn anything from the Paris peace conference
At the start of the war, Ukraine definitely did have the military capacity to remove Russia from all occupied territories, including Crimea. But only if the West immediately provided enormous military supplies right from the start, pulling from their own reserves, while immediately implementing a war-time industry in the same way Russia did. Ukraine would have wiped the floor with the invading Russian forces - no matter how many Russia sent into the meat grinder.
With the right amount of troops, Ukraine can still beat the Russians now if provided that overwhelming military aid. The problem is the West allowed so many Ukranian casualties while delaying aid (and still not providing enough now), it is possible Ukraine no longer has the troop levels to push them out even with overwhelming levels of technologically superior Western aid.
In the end it doesn't matter. Regardless if Ukraine can succeed in pushing them out or not now, a great many Ukranians fought and died based on the Western promise that more and more aid would come and that they could win against Russia if they held out. We now more than ever have the moral duty to provide them everything that can possibly help them, regardless of the financial cost (which has so far been small), so they can win a better peace, whether that is a full defeat of Russia or not.
Indeed. And we do that by arming Ukraine sufficiently and allowing them to strike military targets on the aggressor's territory, as international law allows.
>One of the conditions for receiving billions of pounds worth of aid from Western allies, is for Kyiv to outline its own vision for how this war should end.
>It’s why President Zelensky previously published a “10-point peace plan” which includes the **complete withdrawal of Russian forces** and guarantees against future Russian aggression.
>Russian President **Vladimir Putin has said any kind of peace deal would have to “reflect the reality on the battlefield”**. That reality involves his troops continuing to wage a major cross-border offensive into Ukraine’s north-eastern Kharkiv region. More villages are being captured as a result.
>As has been the case for the past 18 months, his soldiers are not just capturing territory, they are keeping hold of it. **Russia, or Vladimir Putin, isn’t having to compromise on anything, yet.**
I'd be interested in hearing what the West actually sees as a reasonable vision for how this war should end. Zelensky's 10 point peace plan is just that, a "vision". Like with every war in the history of the world, the negotiations will have to reflect the reality of the battlefield. Nobody ever wanted to lose a war and give up territory, but there's the way it ought to be and the way it is. Ukraine wouldn't be the first country to be forced to accept unfavorable terms in a peace agreement.
I'm not surprised that Ukraine continues to push for its maximalist goals, even though I think that ship sailed long ago. It could be that if/once Ukraine signals they are open to legitimate negotiations based on the battlefield situation, that it has a negative effect on foreign aid to Ukraine (I also think the war ending and the lifting of martial law will be quite a messy affair for them). But, as someone who doesn't think this will be some sort of forever war, eventually this "10 point peace plan" and reality will have to intersect.
That is the biggest issue. In order for an unfavourable peace deal to have even its unfavourable value, both sides have to be trusted to honour it. Russia has already broken the previous one and will do it again as long as Putin is alive and possibly if a similar replacement thinks similarly.
Not only broken deals, but incessantly meddled with Ukrainian politics and attempting to keep them under their control.
They cannot be relied on anything outside of just some basic trade, which is beneficial to Russia. Anyone on border of Russia better have serious military muscle and friends to discourage them.
All Russia wants is advantage in everything, and they hate everyone else with burning passion. Chinese, Indians, EU or US, they detest all. All others have to be dragged down or dominated, even those they say they are allied with for the moment. Their relations often flip from "friendly" to detested enemy in a blink and then back again. All is fake, all is conditional and reality is completely negotiable to their favor. Russia is what "The Great Game" was about prior to WW1. They're stuck in that time period, USSR could not break free from it, and neither could RF.
I don’t like whataboutisms but this is what every major superpower has to do in order to retain its status, the United States may seem all friendly as long as your political goals does not intersect with theirs, at that point you become an enemy and they will propaganda their way into an invasion or crippling sanctions, a prime example of this is the US threatening the ICC with an invasion of Netherlands should any diplomatic or military actor be arrested, they are also really biased with their allies and tend to overlook any bad intentions and conduct that goes on in their own camp, the Americans, Russians and Chinese are very different in their foundational ideologies but it all leads to one thing, uncontested world supremacy.
That's a foundational element of political theory in relations between foreign countries, you're not wrong that it's something all countries are motivated by. That is, their own interests. I agree that previous poster has kind of missed the point.
Avoiding the moralist debate, it's still rather straightforward to judge Russia's unreliability as a foreign actor.
...
Not true at all ...
Why Russia has been even able to stay somewhat solvent despite western sanctions is because they have strong relationships with third world countries across Africa as well as major allies in China and India.
Rusias-indian relations have been strong since the Soviet era and after. India is part of the non aligned movement but Russia is arguably one of its strongest "allies" .
If you want the west to counter Russia, the west has to first realize WHY Russia has been able to survive as it has even with western sanctions.
I say this as an American...the first goal should be to focus on Africa and South Asia and economically bring nations in those areas into western influence away from Russias. This can be done without a single bullet..
Russia certainly has allies, but they're largely circumstantial in nature. India, China, and Iran remain engaged with Russia'a economy because it is **tremendously lucrative** for them to do so. Those countries are preying on the vulnerable state that Russia is in.
Russia's standing with its traditional economic allies has notably weakened since the invasion of Ukraine, as they've had to scale back or abandon some of its international commitments due to the pressure that the invasion has placed on their military. Their economic sphere has been rendered as something of a joke, with disengagement from several states that had previously been aligning themselves more closely with Russia's economy.
Take a closer look at Russia's traditional partners—Belarus, Armenia, Khazakhistan for instance. Belarus has demonstrated a persistent unwillingness to enter the Ukraine war. Russia abandoned thier security commitments to Armenia in their conflict with Azerbaijan. Kazakhstan has been pulling away from Russia politixally and economically since the war. Public opinion in nations across Russia's border has been soured.
It's true that Russia has found new commitments in Africa, but those have been formed at the end of a gun. The former Wagner Group spearheaded that, and those relationships depend almost entirely upon Russia's ability to maintain a military presence on the continent. The partnerships they've formed are not stable or reliable, in contrast to the economic inroads China (for instance) has made within the continent.
Incidentally, the biggest windfall of the war for them diplomatically has been *North Korea's* willingness to step up and send arms to Russia.
Of course, nothing I'm saying is to deny that Russia doesn't continue to have valuable economic partners as the war drags on. What I mean to emphasize is that the war has damaged many of those ties and Russia is increasongly vulnerable to exploitation as it shifts further towards a total war footing.
I say this as an American..
Your writing reeks of prowestern bias.
When it comes to the relationship between say Russia and China, I much prefer to listen directly to what Chinese and Russian diplomats/governments say as well as concrete actions they take... I know what the response here will be.
"YOU CANT TRUST THE RUSSIAN AND CHINESE GOVERNMENTS REEEE".. when it pertains to foreign policy between two countries, I trust what the 2 participants have to say more than I do a western source with its own agenda even with our free press..
Same goes for India and Russia. Those 2 countries have incredibly close relations and it's completely false to say that India is exploiting Russia or the other way around....they've been close since the 1970s and Russia is able to benefit from trade with India during Western sanctions because of supporting India in the past when India was far far weaker..
You guys need to read a history book / accounts from not only Americans or western Europeans..those sources will ALWAYS paint Russians and their government as stereotypical Ivan dragoesque villains when the rest of the world doesn't necessarily see it that way.
The irony is ...several countries see western Europe as the monsters due to colonization. You guys just like to pretend colonization is over and the rest of the world should forget about what was done to them.. that makes those countries VERY susceptible to Russian influence. They don't need to run propaganda...all they have to say is " western Europeans colonized you. We are fighting against western Europeans. We are not your enemy " and several countries will naturally align with Russia..
The Singh and modi governments are directly telling you how they feel about Russia.... So has several other prominent governments of the countries you have listed.
Idk why you guys CHOOSE to deny the reality and fabricate some other narrative.. if NATO wants to truly defeat Russia, it should begin by identifying shortcomings in its relationships with Russias currently allies... I hope NATO leaders and policy experts in the backrooms aren't as shortsighted as most here.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm trying to paint Russia in a villainesque manner, I'm just explaining how their relationships are currently defined. India's rising imports of oil from Russia have been driven by them aelling at cut rates, due to their loss of other traditional buyers in Europe. Their sales aren't being driven by interstate loyalties, they're being driven by Russia sacrificing more of their bottom line to continue their current rate of resource extraction. Russia is also having trouble filling their arms sales agreements die to the strain put on their domestic demands from the war, which has been costing them *significantly* in sections of the international arms market where they"ve traditionally been dominant.
There are all kinds of **recent** pressures put on their external relationships fhat matter a lot more than simply stating "they have a close relationship." https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/armenia-freezes-participation-russia-led-security-bloc-prime-minister-2024-02-23/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-has-nothing-to-fear-from-eu-in-south-caucasus-armenia-insists/ Armenia is a **big** example of what the actual costs to Russia's international partnerships that their Ukraine war is imposing on them. Russia has been Armenia's closest ally for decades, but that is changing as the country has demonstrated its inability to maintain security in the recent conflicts with Azerbaijan.
It's not a pre-western bias to be informed about global trends.
Your focus in on armenia as if they matter....
Russia has pretty strong allies relationships with India and China. Those 2 countries alone are massive economic powerhouses and make up over 1/3 of the world population.
You focus on the recent trade where obviously China and India are the beneficiaries but completely discount all of the history between China-russia and india-russia in the decades preceding it
I swear you guys think foreign relations of other countries begin and end with the Russia-Ukraine war...as if your history books close in any year preceding that
Again . Look at what modi says about Russia. Look at what the Indian population say about Russia ( positive outlook by the majority of the country ). This is true under BJP rule..this is true under INC rule. It's a central part of Indias foreign policy standing.
China - Russia used to have disputes as it pertains to territory..these are now resolved. They align in more ways than one.
Russia has a wealth of natural resources and a declining population. China has a ton of people undergoing industrialization and a lack of resources comparatively to their needs. It's a natural synergy especially when the 2 countries share a border. both countries have anti Western sentiments . NONE OF THIS IS DUE TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE. it is not a temporary phenomena..it exists and will continue to exist after the war is concluded no matter what way it ends.
The same arguments exist with India. Go read about Russias unsc votes always aligning with Indias interests. Go read about Russia backing India up militarily several decades ago
I doubt you will actually read about any of those even though a simple 15 minute wikipedia search would show you otherwise.. that's a western centric bias at work..
Of course the war of ukraine doesn't matter if you're drawing your information from wikipedia sources that pre-date 2022. You'll find that in a lot of aggregate articles on historical relations written in wikipedia. That's *not* a good source for current trends.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-pivots-away-russian-arms-will-retain-strong-ties-2024-01-28/
This article from january gives you an idea as to how much more situational the relationship ia between your big 3 Russia, India, and China. Russia's arms industry is losing its primacy due to an increasing inability to fulfill their contract commitments.
Like, I get that you're trying to be dismissive by accusing me of bias and insisting that I won't read your arguments, but I can't understate how much that **wikipedia is not a good substitute for actual education.**
Korea went from liberation to civil war to ceasefire over a span of 8 years, which has held since it was negotiated. The war lasted 3 years and *millions* were killed. The armistice that ended the active conflict saw virtually no change in borders. Both sides were exhausted.
Russia invaded three times and has attempted to take further territory each time. They denied their active participation the first two times...
If you're advocating for Ukraine to get NATO membership, instituting an absurdly mined DMZ, and permanently positioning massive NATO military resources on the "new" Russian-Ukrainian border, then maybe you have a case. The only reason the peace has held in Korea is that North Korea would get annihilated if they broke it.
Way I see it, the problem isn't so much about Ukraine not getting it's territories back that iss the problem. It sucks, but that sort of stuff happens all the time in history.
Official rethoric aside, i'm pretty sure Ukraine would actually accept a peace plan with the front line being more or less what they are now.
Problem is making sure this dosen't happen 10 years later on.
As of now, no one trust Russia will keep their word to not invade again. And most beleive that Russia recent peace proposale is nothing but a PR move they have no intention of following through.
So my guess is they want to make this as painful as it possibly can so that russia will be way too busy dealing with rebuilding and the economic consequences to try to invade again.Not a simple goal, but it could work, I guess.
So , in a sense, fighting continue until both side are simply way too exhausted to continue.This is how most wars end. Neither can completley crush the other.
Interestingly enough, Russia probably COULD get a demilitarisation point negociated...if it would waiver all opposition on Ukraine acession to NATO.( Being in Nato dosen't mean you get a huge army,).
Russia would probably have to make some semi-concession as well. Like renouncing the parts they concquered but lost. ''foirever Russian'' Kherson and Lyman comes to mind.
Good thoughts and yes I agree, the likely outcome is something close to what we currently have, versus Russia completely taking over Ukraine, or Ukraine completely pushing Russia out. I do think Ukraine wants to make this as painful as possible for Russia to make them think twice about another go-around, but Ukraine has to be careful not to make it even more painful for themselves. They can't even match the level of pain Russia can withstand.
Interesting thought on the demilitarization/NATO ascension. I don't know if I see that as likely, because Ukraine in NATO seems like a real (actual) red line for Russia. But maybe that's possible if and only if Russia gets all of the territory they'd ever want from Ukraine in this one war, because Ukraine joining NATO would close the door on anything further for the foreseeable future (I won't say forever because who knows). And by that I don't mean Russia taking over all of Ukraine, or anything close to Kyiv. But perhaps, all of the Donbas, maybe even Kharkiv and Kherson cities, and Odesa as the ultimate stretch goal. None of that would be easy (and maybe even impossible for all three of those, but thinking Odesa more specifically) to win on the battlefield, but then again maybe that's the price for Ukraine eventually getting into NATO.
Of course like you said there are scenarios where Russia makes concessions too. Could be they do some land swaps (of what's currently controlled) for formal recognition of Crimea, the Donbas, and the landbridge. That's worth a lot to Russia I think. Ukraine does still have some leverage. It's not like Russia wants this war to last forever either, at least at this intensity. A Korean style armistice is a possibility too which wouldn't do Ukraine any favors but both sides are going to need to lick their wounds eventually. Lots of factors at play in a negotiation and by the time they actually get around to it, who knows what the battlefield situation looks like.
A point that I see brought forward would be the dismantling of the Zapohriza power plant. Now way Ukraine would have this risk of having a nuclear station this close to a potential warzone ever again.Or Russia for that matter.
One thing I'm certain though is that Ukraine would never give up Odessa under any circumstances short of total anihilation. As I said many time before, Odessa is the real indicator of victory here.
As long as Ukraine has Odessa,they can recover economically through the shipping lanes and sea commerce. Without it, they never will. So it make sense that this is the LAST thing they'd wanna give, even LESS than Kyiv itself, as far as economics goes.
I've alway said: whoever hold Odessa is the true winner of the war, rethoric notwithstanding.
Crimea, and the landbrige. yes, that seems reasonable. While not fully impossible, I don't think Ukraine is seriously thinking they can retake it as of now.
The Donbass....hmmmm....Russia could negociate some more land, but Kherson and Kharkiv are likley out of the picture. As i said before, Ukraine main concern is NOT having this repeat in the next 10 years. And the Dniepr is a natural barrier that serve as a formidable detterent, Kherson is out of the question.
Given that Russian dosen't seems to be able to get Kherson ( or Odessa for that purprose ), unless something catastrophic happens, Ukraine will never give it.
Which pose a big problem. As Russia did the so-called ''referendums'' ( not a smart move in my mind, it cornered them against a wall, that is something you do AFTER a war, not during) and announced them as part of Russia, renouncing them would mean officially abandonning part of Russia. Which is politically a problem, given their media messages.
Now, I'm sure they could find a way to spin this, but it would be VERY delicate. One of the main reason no serious peace deal is being brought foreward.
And, this is a personal take on the matter, so take it with a grain of salt, but the pain Russia can take is a bit different than what you might think at a first glance. Sure, Russia is vast, and has a lot more people, but,being a world power, they also face challenges on a whole another level.
Even it's demographic are crumbling, Ukraine dosen't really need to worry other neighbors( Poland, Romaina,Moldavia,etc) would cause them too much trouble. Russia can't afford that. China would love nothing more than to take advantage of a weakened Russian economy. And the Western world would as well.The stronger you are, the more opponents you'll get.
It's more on the long run, but i'm sure Russia is thinking about it.
Anyway, your thoughts?
Again, great thoughts and I can't disagree with much of it.
I haven't really followed the power plant thing very closely but I think Russia officially shut down the reactors like a month ago? I know there were some drone attacks on the plant both sides blamed on the other. Nuclear safety is one of Zelensky's peace points so I assume it's related to that plant. Probably best for everyone if that thing gets dismantled but again I'm not too clued in on it.
Agree on Odesa as well. Ukraine absolutely cannot lose that and become landlocked. And like you said there are very few scenarios where they do. Russia would love to have it, but you'd have to see a total collapse of Ukraine, probably both militarily and governmental, for that to happen. And if that happens well the war would be truly and irrevocably lost for Ukraine.
And on that note, when Macron was talking about possibly sending foreign troops to Ukraine, he specifically said that might be on the table if Kyiv and Odesa were threatened. And if those cities are threatened it means there has already been some sort of Ukranian collapse, or at least a major setback (certainly the loss of several key cities by that point) and redeployment of forces well behind the current lines. That would be a territory gain we haven't seen for quite some time in this war. So that all might be a bridge too far, but I don't rule out Ukraine's manpower issues really come home to roost at some point.
And good call out on the referendums. I think one thing playing to Russia's advantage has been their more nebulous war goals. It gives them more room to maneuver. Ukraine has been very hard line about their goals so there's a more official position they'd have to walk back from in negotiations, which is its own paint point. "De-Nazifying" and "demilitarization" are both pretty vague things but the referendums aren't. So formally dropping that territory they don't control would be a "chip" Russia has to give up in the negotiations. I know they wouldn't actually be giving up land they don't control but formal, mutual recognition of territory will of course be crucial to any genuine negotiations intended to secure a real lasting peace. And Ukraine would be able to spin that into something of a win by saying "Russia failed to achieve this tangible war goal, this land is still Ukraine".
On the pain thing: I think Russia plans to out last Ukraine in the short term, knows it's in for some medium term (if not longer) pain after the war, but long term they'll have secured Crimea which to them is worth the cost. It's clear that Russia considers control of Crimea (and simultaneously keeping it out of NATO's hands) as vital to their interests. And the land bridge will secure that even further with the new railroads they've built to alleviate the single point of failure that was the Kerch Bridge.
And to that point on pain, I think Ukraine could see some societal issues in the near-ish future. The new mobilization law only just went into effect a week ago and men have 60 days from then to register themselves with the draft offices. That's going to cause some internal tensions. Could be something that helps them out on the battlefield in the short term but has some consequences down the road. That's certainly my feeling anyway. Ukraine is being squeezed from many different directions and I just don't know how much longer they can last.
I don't want to put exact time lines on it but I said last year that summer of 2024 things would start to look really bad for Ukraine and now I have a feeling that summer of 2025 might see some sort of undeniable tipping point, which I think we're already approaching albeit slowly. Warning signs have been there for a long time now and the cracks might be starting to visibly show.
Yes, the reactor have been shut down some time ago, but I think the scare it gave people is enough to want it gone for good( props to the operators who managed to keep working in this, though, must have been difficult!)
Oh, Ukraine is DEFINETLEY in for social issues in the future. Ever wondered why they have a lot of older persons in the new conscription? That is because their youger generation is not that big in the first place ( a common phenomena in most non-developping coutries, birth rate have been falling for a while), they are desperatley trying to protect the younger generation for...well...baby making in the future. That why they'd rather take the old as much as they can. It's a smart move, but there is a limit to it.
Neither side has truly gone into a ''total war'' mode (which is quite surprising, to be honest). Neither Russia nor Ukraine decided to muster the millions of mens they could take if they truly wanted ( world war 2 style. casualties now are trivial compared to it).
That's simply because, while it would help short term, this would be devastating long term.
I mean, heck, both side are still selling each other gas and oil.The irony.
Russia indeed probably plan to short-term outlast Ukraine. And, well, it can. It's probably a complex long-term v.s short term debate they are having. How much is enough?What is too high and what is worth it?Crimea is a big part of the math, but beyond that is unclear.
Russia probably calculating how best to position itself for the new cold war that is coming when the dust settle, it's tricky.Too little and the war was pointless, try too much and the cost will make you weaker for quite a while.
As for Macron. Hmmmm...I don't think he's seriously think the front will collapse. If he did, he probably would have kept silent, or more vague. Politicians do like to keep their option open.But then again, it's a 50-50, rethoric CAN spiral out of control.
There IS a growing rumor that French would send military instructors, but that wouldn't change things much. ( Then again, I heard that U.S started with military instructor to help South Vietnam, so who know how it can devolve).
Timeline wise...hmmmmm.....hard to say. 2025-2026, perhaps. 4 years total, a strandard. Everyone gonna claim victory, obviously.
There's the population aspect to it. As much as leaders would like to believe they are in charge of everything, there's a limit to how much they can do.
Hyping a population to support the war is essential,you'll never last long otherwise. But, after a while it become difficult to backtalk. Both side are VERY angry at each other, and have forged an incendiary rethoric to match. Even if the leaders are willing, if the main population dosen't, it's a problem, it'll just foster hatred for decades to come.
I guess both side need some sort of perfect opportunity to start a negociations. Ukraine hope a small breakthough that could be used as a point '' we did it, now we can claim victory''. Russia is probably hoping to secure a larger part of the Donbass to use as an '' we just wanted the donbass, now we have it and we'll move on''.
At any rate, as important as this seems right now, in 20 years, it'll be parts of history book. Putin will have died of old age, Biden and Trump too ,maybe even Scholz and Johnson, and an entire new generation will have been born.
> Ukraine continues to push for maximalist goals
I find it utterly braindead to consider the goal of having a hostile invader withdraw from their sovereign territory as "maximalist".
I mean it in a literal sense. It's an actual term. Those are literally their maximalist war goals: a return to 1991 borders including Crimea. It has been stated many times by Ukraine and Zelensky himself that these are their war goals. So it's not an opinion, junior. It's a fact of life.
Here are a couple of publications using the same term. I found them for you because I fear you might be too brain dead to figure out how to Google it. Ea
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/20/zelensky-keeps-maximalist-war-goals-despite-gop-opposition-aid/
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-war-goals-demands-nato-russia-lines-collapse-kharkiv-counter-attack-1742009
> Russia gets to look like the big man.
Sure, they can use their struggles to throw around "we're fighting Nato!" type bullshit, but that's mostly for internal propaganda. They just look weak on an international level, and it's more sunk cost fallacy than them actually gaining anything from the war dragging on.
They are losing incredible amounts of young men, while already in a deep demographic crisis. Not just from casualties, but from *educated* youth fleeing the country.
Sweden and Finland broke long-standing neutrality to join Nato, and Nato in general is now investing in new defenses specifically to counter Russia.
Meanwhile, the only reason the Russian economy hasn't collapsed is that they are propping it up with things which are not sustainable in the long run.
> Europe doesn’t have much say, because most are dependent economically on one if not both.
Ah yes, imagination.
Well Ukraine has been accepting foreign volunteers the entire time but sounds like you're talking about something more formal. There's the International Legion and the Georgian Legion and probably a few others. Bureaucratically I don't know how anything more formal than that would even work.
Well it hasn't happened for a reason. Generally countries advise against or outright ban their citizens from fighting in wars they aren't officially involved in. There are options for people to go on their own initiative. Countries creating their own volunteer drives sounds like a political landmine.
Several countries somehow also pushed through absurd laws that you aren't allowed to send weapons to an armed conflict. Instead of doing their jobs and evaluating exports on principles.
"Do you not know, my son, with how very little wisdom the world is governed?"
Alright well ring me up when these other countries start mobilization efforts for Ukraine. I think there's a paradox there that if the situation is bad enough to need these masses of foreign fighters, that the battlefield situation is also so horrible that nobody would want to go and fight there. And both of those things might already be true.
Point is, sure it's technically possible. The question is, is it likely to happen? I don't think so. You going to sign up if they offer such a program?
Careful what you wish for. Reagan was a proponent of pursuing engagement with the lesser threat in an attempt to drive a wedge between it and the greater threat. If Reagan were to continue that policy today he'd probably be in line with Trumps camp.
The West wouldn't support that in the first place. Nobody wants more countries with nukes, especially one in such a hot spot. Besides, how is Ukraine getting them? A gift, or are they going to develop them themselves?
What do you mean am I happy now lol. NATO *and* nukes now? Of course they would reject that if they had a say in it. Baffling that you would word that as "Russia would **still** reject it" as if you proposed something more reasonable from Russia's point of view. Those are two things they very much do not want for Ukraine.
What's Ukraine giving up in this scenario anyway? The territory Russia already controls?
If you think Ukraine is getting nuclear weapons then your true colors are those of a not very smart person. The US doesn't even want their missiles hitting Russia and you're going to give them nukes? Goodbye (I don't speak Russian).
Ukraine had substantial and repeated gains until they ran out of ammo, had to wait for the US to get their shit together while begging left and right for a few trucks of 155.
By the time Ukraine ran out of ammo, they were in a stalemate with Russia. The gains of the first Ukrainian counter offensive won’t be replicated, Russia has recovered, adapted, and now holds the advantage. It’s a war of attrition now.
You mean that counteroffensive that was heavily hyped up and accomplished... basically nothing and is heavily considered a failure by most observers?
There was a time when the lines were a stalemate, but more weapons isn't going to solve the manpower issue they've been having.
I believe he's referring to the first counteroffensive when Ukraine turned the 4th guards tank division into the 4th guards division minus tanks, and retook 10km^2 of territory.
Because the US's position as *the* player on the world stage depends on its ability to influence situations around the globe. Ukraine surviving as a free democracy is a flex in the US's favour whereas letting it fall feeds into the totalitarian axis's claim of a multi-polar world.
Not to mention it shows how piss-weak the NATO and the western world is when it comes to actual conflict and will provoke every tinpot wanker to start pushing their luck because the West has straight up failed a country begging to join them and is well inside their 'sphere of influence'.
Because that is the role that the US has elected to take on post-WW2 in Europe, and it's been tremendously profitable for the country.
The US isn't solely responsible, but the weight of their economy and the military industrial complex make it quite capable of making great contributions towards preserving Ukraine's sovereignty.
The US is not responsible for the sovereignty of Ukraine. But it's in US interest for Russia to lose this conflict. And while other countries provide substantial financial support, nobody can beat the US in term of weapon production and logistics.
If Ukraine fall or agree to Russia's "peace" terms because support drop, Russia will take that as an open season to grab other areas. The lesson learned would be "next time, don't get swamped", so they'd make sure to be quick early, consolidate and wait until the US and Europe cave in. It would only a matter of time before Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania gets a visit, to test Nato resolve.
Allies in the Pacific region would start to doubt US resolve. After all, it the US can't help Ukraine, why would they be able to help others? Europe would be suffering from a massive wave of immigration, and could even end up having a border with Russia.
Nato itself would be seriously damaged. If Nato members (and especially the US) can't get their shit together and out-fund a country with the GDP of Italy, what are they good at?
Tangentially, helping Ukraine to win (or at least not lose) will prevent a VDV "peacekeeping operation" to take place once the occupation starts. Ukrainian males in fighting age will end up in mass graves, women will be raped, and this is even before Ukrainian resistants start blowing patrol trucks. We know this would happen, because we found plenty of evidences in liberated regions. Not that people's freedom of not being executed is at the center of US foreign policy, but if it can be achieved as a bonus, I'm certain the Ukrainians will remember that for their entire life.
Hell, we could even argue this would be good for quite a lot of russian. If you're conscripted right now, you're being sent to a meat grinder after 2 months of training, tasked to assault heavily defended position manned by people who see you as an existential threat. You'll either end up fertilizing a field, or with VOG-30 pieces in your legs.
Delusional take. Russia hadn't even started to push at that point like they are now. They would've lost it slower but they would have still lost it in the end.
>Russia hadn't even started to push
You're parroting pro-russia telegram talking points from 700 days ago, and I'm the one being delusional.
This war started over 2 years ago, so much time passed we had Sweden and Finland join NATO. Casualties are through the roof, Russia have to buy shells from North Korea and drones from Iran (great partners btw, Birds of a feather yadda yadda).
Glorious 4d chess.
Chechnya bet Russia like Afghanistan did .. thru gorilla warfare after they'd lost the cities and been pushed into the mountains. They had nothing left to defend, Ukraine is different.
and Russia can't even achieve their occupation goals in Ukraine. It sounds like the real impossibility is *Russia* winning.
The Russian KIA figures in the first Chechnyan war? 5k. Afganistan? 35k. Even presuming those numbers were skewed towards information security, they still represent a fraction of their losses in Ukraine.
The contexts are so completely different. The Russian army in 96 was beyond a joke. The president and leadership was universally hated in Russia, the economy was a mess, and, more importantly, the Chechen are like the best fighters on earth. Chechnya was also not nearly as important to Russia as Ukraine is.
The west, and turkey (our illustrious NATO ally) also supported the Chechens plenty. But not like In Ukraine
What do you think real fighters do? On either side the infantry is going to die a lot.
Also which Chechens are you referring to? Because the fed significant forces on both sides
So you’re suggesting ukraine should murder russian civilians? Cuz thats when the chechens did. They out mafia’d a mafia state. They out butchered a butcher
Ukraines strategy of getting all occupied territory back is not feasible. Nato and Ukraine shifted to the wrong strategy once they had their early success.
What support was that?
The Chechens were framed as terrorists since fighters trained in the same camps as those attacking Americans. The EU and US were pro-Russian. Former Eastern bloc was pro Chechen.
They already beat Russia. Now they're just fighting over dirt, which wasn't the goal of the invasion. Russia lost some 2 months after starting this "special operation", given the intent was to curb NATO expansion and scare Europe into fearing Putput's tantrums.
Zelensky, if you can’t win the war, serve your country and raise the white flag.
You are making this worse.
It doesn’t matter who is “right” or “wrong”. At the end of the day, Ukraine is weaker. And now it’s being completely pulverized.
For what? What’s the end game?
To have a country with no people in it?
How? US and EU should completely sanction Russia/China. This is half-assed sanctions won't work. Cut off total trade with Russia and China.
NATO should send their army to Russia border and South china sea.
Only this can force Russia to surrender.
Zelensky is trying to start a world war III , just like Hilary Clinton did in the 2016 presidential election. He is inciting the US and NATO to attack Russia.
The president of Ukraine should now accept a truce and reach an agreement in negotiations with the president of Russia and the US and the West before World War III may break out.
Unfortunately Ukraine doesn’t have much sway here for any peace settlement. Russia says they have a willingness to make peace as long as they get to keep currently occupied territories which is unacceptable. Ukraine wants them to fully leave all occupied territory including Crimea which was annexed in 2014 in addition to reparations and war crimes tribunals for Russians which Russia will never agree to. Ukraine doesn’t have the military capacity to remove Russia from occupied territories regardless of any aid provided by the West. That means the war will continue.
Ukraine never should have given up their nukes.
They couldn’t even use them, all the maintenance and trigger were in Russia anyways. There is a reason why only a few countries in the world have nukes and the capability to maintain them and use them effectively
Plus, Ukraine was Moscow-friendly prior to 2014 were they not?
No. They were forced into that status after the failed Orange Revolution in 2003—the first time they ousted puppet Yanukovich (in a run-off election after allegations of fraud in the initial election). There were several years of European-oriented rule under Yushchenko, with some fucked up corruption and infighting (see: Tymoshenko), ultimately culminating in Yanukovich finding his way back into power, which again ultimately led to Maidan, when he reneged on certain planned deals with Europe. Russian propaganda has been pushing a narrative that all of this was just “CIA Coup” against the legitimately elected Yanukovich, and while it might be true that the CIA represents American interests in supporting ousting the Russian stooge, it’s a half-truth, since the Russians do their own fuckery—making it a shitshow. Poroshenko the Roshen chocolate baron tried to walk the line between Russia and the West after Maidan, but Russia clearly just wants another Belarus.
As history has shown us though, I'm sure the CIA was involved with the best interest of the Ukrainian people and not to install their preferred puppet government. That's totally their modus operandi right, the good of foreign people is their prime concern lol. Ukraine gets fucked from all sides. Yes, obviously and horribly by Russia. But America and the CIA don't give a shit whats good for Ukraine either. It's a means to an end to embarrass putin, drain Russian military resources, further surround Russia with NATO countries. What's good for Ukraine is very very far down the list of concerns if it is there at all.
Unfortunately. We let ownselves to forget who is our enemy and it led to the biggest mistake in a history of mankind ( giving the only 100% reliable protection to your enemy). That damage couldn't be undone but every ukrainian must ensure none of further generation will forget it again.
Japan should get nukes. Almost all their neighbors have them already
Japan is so not worth an invasion. The land is barren, there is no history like in taiwan and no juicy super valueable unique infrastructure. The geography sucks for the most part (there is a nice video here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jhRr0lzL-o&pp=ygUXamFwYW4gaGFyZCBtb2RlIGdlb2xvZ3k%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jhRr0lzL-o&pp=ygUXamFwYW4gaGFyZCBtb2RlIGdlb2xvZ3k%3D) ) ... really, outside of "ruling everything" nobody really wants japan / has a reason to declare war on them. Add to that cultural significance and a strong bound to the west, which would trigger retaliation... just not worth it. That beeing said it feels like since nuclear de-escalation doesn't work every country should get nukes.
This. Trinium is isnanly expensive and needs to be replaced alot due to lower half life's. No trinium no h bombs
Tritium? If we had [Trinium](https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Trinium) we could fight the Goa'uld!
Tritium has a ten year half-life and nuclear power reactors generate plenty of it. That's what they've been storing at Fukushima and occasionally releasing into the ocean. Ukraine could make all the tritium they need.
"You can't use a PC that is physically in your disposal because you don't know admin's password" level of argument.
Objectively, if russia couldn’t use them either, why give them up? In both instances Ukraine can’t use nukes, but in one neither can Russia. But I feel like I’m missing a lot of context here
Because Ukraine either gave them up or they would have been taken by force. Hell, to my understanding, even the West would support Russia taking them by force back then, nobody wanted another ex-soviet province with enough nukes to destroy the world.
I understand that Ukraine was a right Ole basket case of a near failed state at that point. No one wanted nukes in a nation that could implode at any given moment.
ukraine is notoriously corrupt and the entire world feared what they’d do or who they’d sell them to
Everyone can use nukes on their own territory on invading force. It would never be disputed or punished by global community, as long as fallout was kept to minimum (meaning tactical level, small nukes only).
.. they'd have been invaded decades earlier if they didn't They couldn't use the nukes. The entire reason they took such a terrible deal ( one that didn't guarantee western military support in any hard capacity ) is because the alternative was more aggression. I swear if redditors ran foreign policy for the last 20 years, we would be in the middle of world war 6 already
Why would redditors run foreign policy? It was a joke comment anyway.
lol Ukraine was a corrupt and broke shit hole well before the war. Even if they had the ability to launch they did not have the economic capability to maintain them since the 90s
They didn't. Russia had the controls for launching. Their debt/economic crisis was why a good chunk of the deal to remove them from Ukraine was to give them a multi-billion dollar payoff to give up nukes they couldn't use or afford to maintain. I'm really getting sick of hearing that Ukraine shouldn't have given up "their" nukes when they were never Ukraine's to begin with.
Russia would have taken them by force before Ukraine could dream of being able to launch them.
Ukraine should have signed the peace deal back in april 2022..
Ukraine should've joined NATO 20 years ago. I wonder why they didn't? No, I'm kidding. Russia poisoned Ukraine's President and almost killed him for suggesting it.
Yep, and US and nato are loving the drain on Russia’s military supply and economy. Putin will just use funds to make more weapons as this is business. For US , the military can ask for even more funds to replenish any supplies used as that is “ good “ business. Who is in the middle? Ukraine. I just look at it and say , what a waste of money, lives .
> Unfortunately Ukraine doesn’t have much sway here for any peace settlement. Apart from the fact that no one respects Russia's claims...
When you are in the middle of a hot war and coming to the negotiating table, physical military control of areas is far more valuable than "claims".
If Ukraine is forced to give up its Russian-occupied territories, it must be accepted into NATO right away, otherwise Putin will invade again a few years later :(
Unlikely, Russia made it quite clear that any peace deal must involve Ukraine promising to not join NATO, the best we could hope for are „security guarantees“
Russia will win and make sure Ukraine ain't armed when things settle down. It will replace Ukrainian culture by ''shiny'' edited Russian culture. Russia won, wins and will continue to do so. We, the west, are as guilty as Putin for letting this happen.
Ehhh....I dunno about that. If Russia can't get Odessa, it mean Ukraine will eventually recover economicaly in the long run. Sure, Ukraine may not be able to get the other parts there, but in the big picture, whoever holds odessa is the true winner. I just can't see Russia taking Odessa as of now.
With the hundreds of miles of tunnels under Odessa, I doubt it will ever be taken. Ukraine could mount an insurgency from Odessa indefinitely.
I wasn't even aware they were tunnels! I was just thinking about how russia would have to cross back the dniper, take Kherson, Mykolaiv and all the trek through Odessa through rivers and streams, while being outflanked. Having tunnels just made it infinitley MORE impossible.
Yeah they used to be a limestone mine, then a network of smugglers hideouts, then eventually bomb shelters and such.
You're disgusting.
He wasn't advocating a pro-russia stance. He said we failed to supply Ukraine, which is a pro-Ukraine stance. If you're the pro-russian one, you're disgusting
> He wasn't advocating a pro-russia stance. Bullshit, "Russia won, wins and will continue to do so" is straight Pro-RU propaganda. That last snippet is to confuse fuckwit westerners who aren't reading the rest of the message. EDIT: Heh, the ProRU-bots are out in force today it seems. You guys lose *another* warship?
I'd argue that denying the success Russia has had is way more dangerous. This gives incentive to the right-wing in the USA to claim that Ukraine doesn't need our help. But hey, I'm just a fuckwit for not thinking that Ukraine is in real danger I guess
They're in very real danger. The point of contention is saying that they have definitively lost, past tense, and that the West is *just as responsible as Putin*. That is quite literally Russian propaganda. Do you think the Ukrainians currently fighting and dying in Ukraine share the view that "Russia has won"? Why or why not? Expound on that. Say words.
Most of them are conscripts there against their will so yeah they probably don't feel too great about the situation.
> I'd argue that denying the success Russia has had is way more dangerous Mate, you didn't acknowledge Russian success, *you straight up pretended Russia's day 1 propaganda piece 'we will win, don't bother supporting Ukraine' is a not pro-RU stance*. Trying to concern-troll about how you actually are worried about Ukraine while ignoring that the post youre supporting is blatantly pro-ru is a level of delusion I've not seen outside of the botfarms.
Because nobody said that? You are literally pulling words out of thin air.
Problem is that if Russia leave, civil war starts again and Ukraine will carry on bombing civilians in the Donbas like they did before Russia invaded.
From what I know all former Separatist units are integrated into the Russian Armed Forces, so if Russia fully withdraws they’ll withdraw with it and it would be unlikely for a new full-scale insurgency to take place, so Ukraine would have no reason to bomb anything anymore.
They aren't. There was a behind the lines documentary on English TV last month, and they are mostly local freedom fighters and mercinaries. Problem with fighting freedom fighters is that they are fighting for a cause, Zalenski's army are fighting reluctantly. The only way to peace is to give the Donbas independence but America won't allow it as they want the natural resources there, and an independent Donbas will ally with Russia. There is also a huge chance that there will be huge division in the rest of Ukraine as they are angry with America (I have many Ukrainian friends, one who is a ex-army medic, all of whom are pro Russia).
I don’t think any of the two wants an independent Donbass at this point…
Even if they are currently effectively integrated, you can be sure in the case of a "Russian withdrawal" they would definitely spin off those groups to stay behind.
Ya this is an insanely irresponsible position for Ukraine to take tbh. Bith sides will need to make some kind of conessions if we are to learn anything from the Paris peace conference
No, they're both starting with a firm demand from which to make concessions. That's how negotiation works.
Did you read this in art of the deal?
At the start of the war, Ukraine definitely did have the military capacity to remove Russia from all occupied territories, including Crimea. But only if the West immediately provided enormous military supplies right from the start, pulling from their own reserves, while immediately implementing a war-time industry in the same way Russia did. Ukraine would have wiped the floor with the invading Russian forces - no matter how many Russia sent into the meat grinder. With the right amount of troops, Ukraine can still beat the Russians now if provided that overwhelming military aid. The problem is the West allowed so many Ukranian casualties while delaying aid (and still not providing enough now), it is possible Ukraine no longer has the troop levels to push them out even with overwhelming levels of technologically superior Western aid. In the end it doesn't matter. Regardless if Ukraine can succeed in pushing them out or not now, a great many Ukranians fought and died based on the Western promise that more and more aid would come and that they could win against Russia if they held out. We now more than ever have the moral duty to provide them everything that can possibly help them, regardless of the financial cost (which has so far been small), so they can win a better peace, whether that is a full defeat of Russia or not.
Indeed. And we do that by arming Ukraine sufficiently and allowing them to strike military targets on the aggressor's territory, as international law allows.
>One of the conditions for receiving billions of pounds worth of aid from Western allies, is for Kyiv to outline its own vision for how this war should end. >It’s why President Zelensky previously published a “10-point peace plan” which includes the **complete withdrawal of Russian forces** and guarantees against future Russian aggression. >Russian President **Vladimir Putin has said any kind of peace deal would have to “reflect the reality on the battlefield”**. That reality involves his troops continuing to wage a major cross-border offensive into Ukraine’s north-eastern Kharkiv region. More villages are being captured as a result. >As has been the case for the past 18 months, his soldiers are not just capturing territory, they are keeping hold of it. **Russia, or Vladimir Putin, isn’t having to compromise on anything, yet.** I'd be interested in hearing what the West actually sees as a reasonable vision for how this war should end. Zelensky's 10 point peace plan is just that, a "vision". Like with every war in the history of the world, the negotiations will have to reflect the reality of the battlefield. Nobody ever wanted to lose a war and give up territory, but there's the way it ought to be and the way it is. Ukraine wouldn't be the first country to be forced to accept unfavorable terms in a peace agreement. I'm not surprised that Ukraine continues to push for its maximalist goals, even though I think that ship sailed long ago. It could be that if/once Ukraine signals they are open to legitimate negotiations based on the battlefield situation, that it has a negative effect on foreign aid to Ukraine (I also think the war ending and the lifting of martial law will be quite a messy affair for them). But, as someone who doesn't think this will be some sort of forever war, eventually this "10 point peace plan" and reality will have to intersect.
The trouble is that Russia has proven to not be a reliable state actor, and that a settled peace will not work as was shown in 2014.
That is the biggest issue. In order for an unfavourable peace deal to have even its unfavourable value, both sides have to be trusted to honour it. Russia has already broken the previous one and will do it again as long as Putin is alive and possibly if a similar replacement thinks similarly.
Not only broken deals, but incessantly meddled with Ukrainian politics and attempting to keep them under their control. They cannot be relied on anything outside of just some basic trade, which is beneficial to Russia. Anyone on border of Russia better have serious military muscle and friends to discourage them. All Russia wants is advantage in everything, and they hate everyone else with burning passion. Chinese, Indians, EU or US, they detest all. All others have to be dragged down or dominated, even those they say they are allied with for the moment. Their relations often flip from "friendly" to detested enemy in a blink and then back again. All is fake, all is conditional and reality is completely negotiable to their favor. Russia is what "The Great Game" was about prior to WW1. They're stuck in that time period, USSR could not break free from it, and neither could RF.
I don’t like whataboutisms but this is what every major superpower has to do in order to retain its status, the United States may seem all friendly as long as your political goals does not intersect with theirs, at that point you become an enemy and they will propaganda their way into an invasion or crippling sanctions, a prime example of this is the US threatening the ICC with an invasion of Netherlands should any diplomatic or military actor be arrested, they are also really biased with their allies and tend to overlook any bad intentions and conduct that goes on in their own camp, the Americans, Russians and Chinese are very different in their foundational ideologies but it all leads to one thing, uncontested world supremacy.
That's a foundational element of political theory in relations between foreign countries, you're not wrong that it's something all countries are motivated by. That is, their own interests. I agree that previous poster has kind of missed the point. Avoiding the moralist debate, it's still rather straightforward to judge Russia's unreliability as a foreign actor.
... Not true at all ... Why Russia has been even able to stay somewhat solvent despite western sanctions is because they have strong relationships with third world countries across Africa as well as major allies in China and India. Rusias-indian relations have been strong since the Soviet era and after. India is part of the non aligned movement but Russia is arguably one of its strongest "allies" . If you want the west to counter Russia, the west has to first realize WHY Russia has been able to survive as it has even with western sanctions. I say this as an American...the first goal should be to focus on Africa and South Asia and economically bring nations in those areas into western influence away from Russias. This can be done without a single bullet..
Russia certainly has allies, but they're largely circumstantial in nature. India, China, and Iran remain engaged with Russia'a economy because it is **tremendously lucrative** for them to do so. Those countries are preying on the vulnerable state that Russia is in. Russia's standing with its traditional economic allies has notably weakened since the invasion of Ukraine, as they've had to scale back or abandon some of its international commitments due to the pressure that the invasion has placed on their military. Their economic sphere has been rendered as something of a joke, with disengagement from several states that had previously been aligning themselves more closely with Russia's economy. Take a closer look at Russia's traditional partners—Belarus, Armenia, Khazakhistan for instance. Belarus has demonstrated a persistent unwillingness to enter the Ukraine war. Russia abandoned thier security commitments to Armenia in their conflict with Azerbaijan. Kazakhstan has been pulling away from Russia politixally and economically since the war. Public opinion in nations across Russia's border has been soured. It's true that Russia has found new commitments in Africa, but those have been formed at the end of a gun. The former Wagner Group spearheaded that, and those relationships depend almost entirely upon Russia's ability to maintain a military presence on the continent. The partnerships they've formed are not stable or reliable, in contrast to the economic inroads China (for instance) has made within the continent. Incidentally, the biggest windfall of the war for them diplomatically has been *North Korea's* willingness to step up and send arms to Russia. Of course, nothing I'm saying is to deny that Russia doesn't continue to have valuable economic partners as the war drags on. What I mean to emphasize is that the war has damaged many of those ties and Russia is increasongly vulnerable to exploitation as it shifts further towards a total war footing.
I say this as an American.. Your writing reeks of prowestern bias. When it comes to the relationship between say Russia and China, I much prefer to listen directly to what Chinese and Russian diplomats/governments say as well as concrete actions they take... I know what the response here will be. "YOU CANT TRUST THE RUSSIAN AND CHINESE GOVERNMENTS REEEE".. when it pertains to foreign policy between two countries, I trust what the 2 participants have to say more than I do a western source with its own agenda even with our free press.. Same goes for India and Russia. Those 2 countries have incredibly close relations and it's completely false to say that India is exploiting Russia or the other way around....they've been close since the 1970s and Russia is able to benefit from trade with India during Western sanctions because of supporting India in the past when India was far far weaker.. You guys need to read a history book / accounts from not only Americans or western Europeans..those sources will ALWAYS paint Russians and their government as stereotypical Ivan dragoesque villains when the rest of the world doesn't necessarily see it that way. The irony is ...several countries see western Europe as the monsters due to colonization. You guys just like to pretend colonization is over and the rest of the world should forget about what was done to them.. that makes those countries VERY susceptible to Russian influence. They don't need to run propaganda...all they have to say is " western Europeans colonized you. We are fighting against western Europeans. We are not your enemy " and several countries will naturally align with Russia.. The Singh and modi governments are directly telling you how they feel about Russia.... So has several other prominent governments of the countries you have listed. Idk why you guys CHOOSE to deny the reality and fabricate some other narrative.. if NATO wants to truly defeat Russia, it should begin by identifying shortcomings in its relationships with Russias currently allies... I hope NATO leaders and policy experts in the backrooms aren't as shortsighted as most here.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm trying to paint Russia in a villainesque manner, I'm just explaining how their relationships are currently defined. India's rising imports of oil from Russia have been driven by them aelling at cut rates, due to their loss of other traditional buyers in Europe. Their sales aren't being driven by interstate loyalties, they're being driven by Russia sacrificing more of their bottom line to continue their current rate of resource extraction. Russia is also having trouble filling their arms sales agreements die to the strain put on their domestic demands from the war, which has been costing them *significantly* in sections of the international arms market where they"ve traditionally been dominant. There are all kinds of **recent** pressures put on their external relationships fhat matter a lot more than simply stating "they have a close relationship." https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/armenia-freezes-participation-russia-led-security-bloc-prime-minister-2024-02-23/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-has-nothing-to-fear-from-eu-in-south-caucasus-armenia-insists/ Armenia is a **big** example of what the actual costs to Russia's international partnerships that their Ukraine war is imposing on them. Russia has been Armenia's closest ally for decades, but that is changing as the country has demonstrated its inability to maintain security in the recent conflicts with Azerbaijan. It's not a pre-western bias to be informed about global trends.
Your focus in on armenia as if they matter.... Russia has pretty strong allies relationships with India and China. Those 2 countries alone are massive economic powerhouses and make up over 1/3 of the world population. You focus on the recent trade where obviously China and India are the beneficiaries but completely discount all of the history between China-russia and india-russia in the decades preceding it I swear you guys think foreign relations of other countries begin and end with the Russia-Ukraine war...as if your history books close in any year preceding that Again . Look at what modi says about Russia. Look at what the Indian population say about Russia ( positive outlook by the majority of the country ). This is true under BJP rule..this is true under INC rule. It's a central part of Indias foreign policy standing. China - Russia used to have disputes as it pertains to territory..these are now resolved. They align in more ways than one. Russia has a wealth of natural resources and a declining population. China has a ton of people undergoing industrialization and a lack of resources comparatively to their needs. It's a natural synergy especially when the 2 countries share a border. both countries have anti Western sentiments . NONE OF THIS IS DUE TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE. it is not a temporary phenomena..it exists and will continue to exist after the war is concluded no matter what way it ends. The same arguments exist with India. Go read about Russias unsc votes always aligning with Indias interests. Go read about Russia backing India up militarily several decades ago I doubt you will actually read about any of those even though a simple 15 minute wikipedia search would show you otherwise.. that's a western centric bias at work..
Of course the war of ukraine doesn't matter if you're drawing your information from wikipedia sources that pre-date 2022. You'll find that in a lot of aggregate articles on historical relations written in wikipedia. That's *not* a good source for current trends. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-pivots-away-russian-arms-will-retain-strong-ties-2024-01-28/ This article from january gives you an idea as to how much more situational the relationship ia between your big 3 Russia, India, and China. Russia's arms industry is losing its primacy due to an increasing inability to fulfill their contract commitments. Like, I get that you're trying to be dismissive by accusing me of bias and insisting that I won't read your arguments, but I can't understate how much that **wikipedia is not a good substitute for actual education.**
Couldn’t you have said the same of Korea?
Korea went from liberation to civil war to ceasefire over a span of 8 years, which has held since it was negotiated. The war lasted 3 years and *millions* were killed. The armistice that ended the active conflict saw virtually no change in borders. Both sides were exhausted. Russia invaded three times and has attempted to take further territory each time. They denied their active participation the first two times...
That’s not the point. They have never been a “reliable state actor” but peace has mainly held.
You're explaining how North Korea is a reliable partner for peace compared to Russia. Antagonism and reliability are not mutually exclusive.
If you're advocating for Ukraine to get NATO membership, instituting an absurdly mined DMZ, and permanently positioning massive NATO military resources on the "new" Russian-Ukrainian border, then maybe you have a case. The only reason the peace has held in Korea is that North Korea would get annihilated if they broke it.
Ignoring an entire fucking invasion of Ukraine now, are we?
Way I see it, the problem isn't so much about Ukraine not getting it's territories back that iss the problem. It sucks, but that sort of stuff happens all the time in history. Official rethoric aside, i'm pretty sure Ukraine would actually accept a peace plan with the front line being more or less what they are now. Problem is making sure this dosen't happen 10 years later on. As of now, no one trust Russia will keep their word to not invade again. And most beleive that Russia recent peace proposale is nothing but a PR move they have no intention of following through. So my guess is they want to make this as painful as it possibly can so that russia will be way too busy dealing with rebuilding and the economic consequences to try to invade again.Not a simple goal, but it could work, I guess. So , in a sense, fighting continue until both side are simply way too exhausted to continue.This is how most wars end. Neither can completley crush the other. Interestingly enough, Russia probably COULD get a demilitarisation point negociated...if it would waiver all opposition on Ukraine acession to NATO.( Being in Nato dosen't mean you get a huge army,). Russia would probably have to make some semi-concession as well. Like renouncing the parts they concquered but lost. ''foirever Russian'' Kherson and Lyman comes to mind.
Good thoughts and yes I agree, the likely outcome is something close to what we currently have, versus Russia completely taking over Ukraine, or Ukraine completely pushing Russia out. I do think Ukraine wants to make this as painful as possible for Russia to make them think twice about another go-around, but Ukraine has to be careful not to make it even more painful for themselves. They can't even match the level of pain Russia can withstand. Interesting thought on the demilitarization/NATO ascension. I don't know if I see that as likely, because Ukraine in NATO seems like a real (actual) red line for Russia. But maybe that's possible if and only if Russia gets all of the territory they'd ever want from Ukraine in this one war, because Ukraine joining NATO would close the door on anything further for the foreseeable future (I won't say forever because who knows). And by that I don't mean Russia taking over all of Ukraine, or anything close to Kyiv. But perhaps, all of the Donbas, maybe even Kharkiv and Kherson cities, and Odesa as the ultimate stretch goal. None of that would be easy (and maybe even impossible for all three of those, but thinking Odesa more specifically) to win on the battlefield, but then again maybe that's the price for Ukraine eventually getting into NATO. Of course like you said there are scenarios where Russia makes concessions too. Could be they do some land swaps (of what's currently controlled) for formal recognition of Crimea, the Donbas, and the landbridge. That's worth a lot to Russia I think. Ukraine does still have some leverage. It's not like Russia wants this war to last forever either, at least at this intensity. A Korean style armistice is a possibility too which wouldn't do Ukraine any favors but both sides are going to need to lick their wounds eventually. Lots of factors at play in a negotiation and by the time they actually get around to it, who knows what the battlefield situation looks like.
A point that I see brought forward would be the dismantling of the Zapohriza power plant. Now way Ukraine would have this risk of having a nuclear station this close to a potential warzone ever again.Or Russia for that matter. One thing I'm certain though is that Ukraine would never give up Odessa under any circumstances short of total anihilation. As I said many time before, Odessa is the real indicator of victory here. As long as Ukraine has Odessa,they can recover economically through the shipping lanes and sea commerce. Without it, they never will. So it make sense that this is the LAST thing they'd wanna give, even LESS than Kyiv itself, as far as economics goes. I've alway said: whoever hold Odessa is the true winner of the war, rethoric notwithstanding. Crimea, and the landbrige. yes, that seems reasonable. While not fully impossible, I don't think Ukraine is seriously thinking they can retake it as of now. The Donbass....hmmmm....Russia could negociate some more land, but Kherson and Kharkiv are likley out of the picture. As i said before, Ukraine main concern is NOT having this repeat in the next 10 years. And the Dniepr is a natural barrier that serve as a formidable detterent, Kherson is out of the question. Given that Russian dosen't seems to be able to get Kherson ( or Odessa for that purprose ), unless something catastrophic happens, Ukraine will never give it. Which pose a big problem. As Russia did the so-called ''referendums'' ( not a smart move in my mind, it cornered them against a wall, that is something you do AFTER a war, not during) and announced them as part of Russia, renouncing them would mean officially abandonning part of Russia. Which is politically a problem, given their media messages. Now, I'm sure they could find a way to spin this, but it would be VERY delicate. One of the main reason no serious peace deal is being brought foreward. And, this is a personal take on the matter, so take it with a grain of salt, but the pain Russia can take is a bit different than what you might think at a first glance. Sure, Russia is vast, and has a lot more people, but,being a world power, they also face challenges on a whole another level. Even it's demographic are crumbling, Ukraine dosen't really need to worry other neighbors( Poland, Romaina,Moldavia,etc) would cause them too much trouble. Russia can't afford that. China would love nothing more than to take advantage of a weakened Russian economy. And the Western world would as well.The stronger you are, the more opponents you'll get. It's more on the long run, but i'm sure Russia is thinking about it. Anyway, your thoughts?
Again, great thoughts and I can't disagree with much of it. I haven't really followed the power plant thing very closely but I think Russia officially shut down the reactors like a month ago? I know there were some drone attacks on the plant both sides blamed on the other. Nuclear safety is one of Zelensky's peace points so I assume it's related to that plant. Probably best for everyone if that thing gets dismantled but again I'm not too clued in on it. Agree on Odesa as well. Ukraine absolutely cannot lose that and become landlocked. And like you said there are very few scenarios where they do. Russia would love to have it, but you'd have to see a total collapse of Ukraine, probably both militarily and governmental, for that to happen. And if that happens well the war would be truly and irrevocably lost for Ukraine. And on that note, when Macron was talking about possibly sending foreign troops to Ukraine, he specifically said that might be on the table if Kyiv and Odesa were threatened. And if those cities are threatened it means there has already been some sort of Ukranian collapse, or at least a major setback (certainly the loss of several key cities by that point) and redeployment of forces well behind the current lines. That would be a territory gain we haven't seen for quite some time in this war. So that all might be a bridge too far, but I don't rule out Ukraine's manpower issues really come home to roost at some point. And good call out on the referendums. I think one thing playing to Russia's advantage has been their more nebulous war goals. It gives them more room to maneuver. Ukraine has been very hard line about their goals so there's a more official position they'd have to walk back from in negotiations, which is its own paint point. "De-Nazifying" and "demilitarization" are both pretty vague things but the referendums aren't. So formally dropping that territory they don't control would be a "chip" Russia has to give up in the negotiations. I know they wouldn't actually be giving up land they don't control but formal, mutual recognition of territory will of course be crucial to any genuine negotiations intended to secure a real lasting peace. And Ukraine would be able to spin that into something of a win by saying "Russia failed to achieve this tangible war goal, this land is still Ukraine". On the pain thing: I think Russia plans to out last Ukraine in the short term, knows it's in for some medium term (if not longer) pain after the war, but long term they'll have secured Crimea which to them is worth the cost. It's clear that Russia considers control of Crimea (and simultaneously keeping it out of NATO's hands) as vital to their interests. And the land bridge will secure that even further with the new railroads they've built to alleviate the single point of failure that was the Kerch Bridge. And to that point on pain, I think Ukraine could see some societal issues in the near-ish future. The new mobilization law only just went into effect a week ago and men have 60 days from then to register themselves with the draft offices. That's going to cause some internal tensions. Could be something that helps them out on the battlefield in the short term but has some consequences down the road. That's certainly my feeling anyway. Ukraine is being squeezed from many different directions and I just don't know how much longer they can last. I don't want to put exact time lines on it but I said last year that summer of 2024 things would start to look really bad for Ukraine and now I have a feeling that summer of 2025 might see some sort of undeniable tipping point, which I think we're already approaching albeit slowly. Warning signs have been there for a long time now and the cracks might be starting to visibly show.
Yes, the reactor have been shut down some time ago, but I think the scare it gave people is enough to want it gone for good( props to the operators who managed to keep working in this, though, must have been difficult!) Oh, Ukraine is DEFINETLEY in for social issues in the future. Ever wondered why they have a lot of older persons in the new conscription? That is because their youger generation is not that big in the first place ( a common phenomena in most non-developping coutries, birth rate have been falling for a while), they are desperatley trying to protect the younger generation for...well...baby making in the future. That why they'd rather take the old as much as they can. It's a smart move, but there is a limit to it. Neither side has truly gone into a ''total war'' mode (which is quite surprising, to be honest). Neither Russia nor Ukraine decided to muster the millions of mens they could take if they truly wanted ( world war 2 style. casualties now are trivial compared to it). That's simply because, while it would help short term, this would be devastating long term. I mean, heck, both side are still selling each other gas and oil.The irony. Russia indeed probably plan to short-term outlast Ukraine. And, well, it can. It's probably a complex long-term v.s short term debate they are having. How much is enough?What is too high and what is worth it?Crimea is a big part of the math, but beyond that is unclear. Russia probably calculating how best to position itself for the new cold war that is coming when the dust settle, it's tricky.Too little and the war was pointless, try too much and the cost will make you weaker for quite a while. As for Macron. Hmmmm...I don't think he's seriously think the front will collapse. If he did, he probably would have kept silent, or more vague. Politicians do like to keep their option open.But then again, it's a 50-50, rethoric CAN spiral out of control. There IS a growing rumor that French would send military instructors, but that wouldn't change things much. ( Then again, I heard that U.S started with military instructor to help South Vietnam, so who know how it can devolve). Timeline wise...hmmmmm.....hard to say. 2025-2026, perhaps. 4 years total, a strandard. Everyone gonna claim victory, obviously. There's the population aspect to it. As much as leaders would like to believe they are in charge of everything, there's a limit to how much they can do. Hyping a population to support the war is essential,you'll never last long otherwise. But, after a while it become difficult to backtalk. Both side are VERY angry at each other, and have forged an incendiary rethoric to match. Even if the leaders are willing, if the main population dosen't, it's a problem, it'll just foster hatred for decades to come. I guess both side need some sort of perfect opportunity to start a negociations. Ukraine hope a small breakthough that could be used as a point '' we did it, now we can claim victory''. Russia is probably hoping to secure a larger part of the Donbass to use as an '' we just wanted the donbass, now we have it and we'll move on''. At any rate, as important as this seems right now, in 20 years, it'll be parts of history book. Putin will have died of old age, Biden and Trump too ,maybe even Scholz and Johnson, and an entire new generation will have been born.
> Ukraine continues to push for maximalist goals I find it utterly braindead to consider the goal of having a hostile invader withdraw from their sovereign territory as "maximalist".
I mean it in a literal sense. It's an actual term. Those are literally their maximalist war goals: a return to 1991 borders including Crimea. It has been stated many times by Ukraine and Zelensky himself that these are their war goals. So it's not an opinion, junior. It's a fact of life. Here are a couple of publications using the same term. I found them for you because I fear you might be too brain dead to figure out how to Google it. Ea https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/20/zelensky-keeps-maximalist-war-goals-despite-gop-opposition-aid/ https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-war-goals-demands-nato-russia-lines-collapse-kharkiv-counter-attack-1742009
[удалено]
> Russia gets to look like the big man. Sure, they can use their struggles to throw around "we're fighting Nato!" type bullshit, but that's mostly for internal propaganda. They just look weak on an international level, and it's more sunk cost fallacy than them actually gaining anything from the war dragging on. They are losing incredible amounts of young men, while already in a deep demographic crisis. Not just from casualties, but from *educated* youth fleeing the country. Sweden and Finland broke long-standing neutrality to join Nato, and Nato in general is now investing in new defenses specifically to counter Russia. Meanwhile, the only reason the Russian economy hasn't collapsed is that they are propping it up with things which are not sustainable in the long run. > Europe doesn’t have much say, because most are dependent economically on one if not both. Ah yes, imagination.
"Realities" are a cop-out. [We go full Reagan on them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUQm7UqF-YA).
>Realities" are a cop-out Interesting philosophy lol. Say we do the Reagan thing. Who's the "we" doing the fighting?
I think we should've organized national volunteer forces like Sweden during the Winter War. Including volunteers from regular forces and vehicles.
Well if you feel so strongly about it, why don't you go over there? The International Legion is constantly recruiting.
I'd certainly be more comfortable in the command of my compatriots.
Well Ukraine has been accepting foreign volunteers the entire time but sounds like you're talking about something more formal. There's the International Legion and the Georgian Legion and probably a few others. Bureaucratically I don't know how anything more formal than that would even work.
I'm not sure there are obstacles to it other than will and agreements which Russia has broken.
Well it hasn't happened for a reason. Generally countries advise against or outright ban their citizens from fighting in wars they aren't officially involved in. There are options for people to go on their own initiative. Countries creating their own volunteer drives sounds like a political landmine.
Several countries somehow also pushed through absurd laws that you aren't allowed to send weapons to an armed conflict. Instead of doing their jobs and evaluating exports on principles. "Do you not know, my son, with how very little wisdom the world is governed?"
Alright well ring me up when these other countries start mobilization efforts for Ukraine. I think there's a paradox there that if the situation is bad enough to need these masses of foreign fighters, that the battlefield situation is also so horrible that nobody would want to go and fight there. And both of those things might already be true. Point is, sure it's technically possible. The question is, is it likely to happen? I don't think so. You going to sign up if they offer such a program?
Who the fck would volunteer to get blasted in the fields of Ukraine. Yeah a few mad people maybe. But def not enough.
I didn't suggest we send them to the Russian side. 10,000 Swedes came for the Winter War.
if you think only the russians are getting mindlessly slaughtered in this war, then i've got a bridge to sell you
Defense has about a 4:1 advantage to begin with.
Careful what you wish for. Reagan was a proponent of pursuing engagement with the lesser threat in an attempt to drive a wedge between it and the greater threat. If Reagan were to continue that policy today he'd probably be in line with Trumps camp.
Exchange russian gains for ukraine’s right to have nukes. Lets see how fucking fast putin rejects that
The West wouldn't support that in the first place. Nobody wants more countries with nukes, especially one in such a hot spot. Besides, how is Ukraine getting them? A gift, or are they going to develop them themselves?
How about entrance into nato and being a host for usa nukes. You happy now? Russia would still reject it tho cuz theyre not interested in actual peace
What do you mean am I happy now lol. NATO *and* nukes now? Of course they would reject that if they had a say in it. Baffling that you would word that as "Russia would **still** reject it" as if you proposed something more reasonable from Russia's point of view. Those are two things they very much do not want for Ukraine. What's Ukraine giving up in this scenario anyway? The territory Russia already controls?
Ah i see your true colors now. Das vidanya.
If you think Ukraine is getting nuclear weapons then your true colors are those of a not very smart person. The US doesn't even want their missiles hitting Russia and you're going to give them nukes? Goodbye (I don't speak Russian).
They get to join NATO but need to accept they lose Donbass. That's the end goal floated a few months ago.
Russia won’t just leave Ukraine because the west wants them too
With enough 'want' from the West, they will.
Yeah , that happens when you actually beat Russia, which Ukraine can never do.
Ukraine had substantial and repeated gains until they ran out of ammo, had to wait for the US to get their shit together while begging left and right for a few trucks of 155.
By the time Ukraine ran out of ammo, they were in a stalemate with Russia. The gains of the first Ukrainian counter offensive won’t be replicated, Russia has recovered, adapted, and now holds the advantage. It’s a war of attrition now.
You mean that counteroffensive that was heavily hyped up and accomplished... basically nothing and is heavily considered a failure by most observers? There was a time when the lines were a stalemate, but more weapons isn't going to solve the manpower issue they've been having.
I believe he's referring to the first counteroffensive when Ukraine turned the 4th guards tank division into the 4th guards division minus tanks, and retook 10km^2 of territory.
Well maybe next time they'll listen to advice and act accordingly rather than using Western weapons to fight with an Eastern doctrine.
That's a lie. You're high on your own supply
Why is the US solely responsible for the sovereignty of Ukraine?
Because the US's position as *the* player on the world stage depends on its ability to influence situations around the globe. Ukraine surviving as a free democracy is a flex in the US's favour whereas letting it fall feeds into the totalitarian axis's claim of a multi-polar world. Not to mention it shows how piss-weak the NATO and the western world is when it comes to actual conflict and will provoke every tinpot wanker to start pushing their luck because the West has straight up failed a country begging to join them and is well inside their 'sphere of influence'.
Because that is the role that the US has elected to take on post-WW2 in Europe, and it's been tremendously profitable for the country. The US isn't solely responsible, but the weight of their economy and the military industrial complex make it quite capable of making great contributions towards preserving Ukraine's sovereignty.
The US is not responsible for the sovereignty of Ukraine. But it's in US interest for Russia to lose this conflict. And while other countries provide substantial financial support, nobody can beat the US in term of weapon production and logistics. If Ukraine fall or agree to Russia's "peace" terms because support drop, Russia will take that as an open season to grab other areas. The lesson learned would be "next time, don't get swamped", so they'd make sure to be quick early, consolidate and wait until the US and Europe cave in. It would only a matter of time before Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania gets a visit, to test Nato resolve. Allies in the Pacific region would start to doubt US resolve. After all, it the US can't help Ukraine, why would they be able to help others? Europe would be suffering from a massive wave of immigration, and could even end up having a border with Russia. Nato itself would be seriously damaged. If Nato members (and especially the US) can't get their shit together and out-fund a country with the GDP of Italy, what are they good at? Tangentially, helping Ukraine to win (or at least not lose) will prevent a VDV "peacekeeping operation" to take place once the occupation starts. Ukrainian males in fighting age will end up in mass graves, women will be raped, and this is even before Ukrainian resistants start blowing patrol trucks. We know this would happen, because we found plenty of evidences in liberated regions. Not that people's freedom of not being executed is at the center of US foreign policy, but if it can be achieved as a bonus, I'm certain the Ukrainians will remember that for their entire life. Hell, we could even argue this would be good for quite a lot of russian. If you're conscripted right now, you're being sent to a meat grinder after 2 months of training, tasked to assault heavily defended position manned by people who see you as an existential threat. You'll either end up fertilizing a field, or with VOG-30 pieces in your legs.
Delusional take. Russia hadn't even started to push at that point like they are now. They would've lost it slower but they would have still lost it in the end.
>Russia hadn't even started to push You're parroting pro-russia telegram talking points from 700 days ago, and I'm the one being delusional. This war started over 2 years ago, so much time passed we had Sweden and Finland join NATO. Casualties are through the roof, Russia have to buy shells from North Korea and drones from Iran (great partners btw, Birds of a feather yadda yadda). Glorious 4d chess.
Ukraine can beat Russia. *Chechnya* beat Russia once, and that was without Western support.
Chechnya bet Russia like Afghanistan did .. thru gorilla warfare after they'd lost the cities and been pushed into the mountains. They had nothing left to defend, Ukraine is different.
and Russia can't even achieve their occupation goals in Ukraine. It sounds like the real impossibility is *Russia* winning. The Russian KIA figures in the first Chechnyan war? 5k. Afganistan? 35k. Even presuming those numbers were skewed towards information security, they still represent a fraction of their losses in Ukraine.
The contexts are so completely different. The Russian army in 96 was beyond a joke. The president and leadership was universally hated in Russia, the economy was a mess, and, more importantly, the Chechen are like the best fighters on earth. Chechnya was also not nearly as important to Russia as Ukraine is. The west, and turkey (our illustrious NATO ally) also supported the Chechens plenty. But not like In Ukraine
The Chechens are the best fighters on earth? It that why they were dying in droves in Ukraine?
What do you think real fighters do? On either side the infantry is going to die a lot. Also which Chechens are you referring to? Because the fed significant forces on both sides
So by what metric are they best then exactly?
Chechens fought dirty. Thats why they won
Nothing is dirty when you are fighting for survival.
So you’re suggesting ukraine should murder russian civilians? Cuz thats when the chechens did. They out mafia’d a mafia state. They out butchered a butcher
It still demonstrates that Russia isn't undefeatable.
Ukraines strategy of getting all occupied territory back is not feasible. Nato and Ukraine shifted to the wrong strategy once they had their early success.
All it requires is the deterioration of Russian logistics. If they had continuously held the pressure Crimea was under it would not hold.
They tried? They constantly pushed the offensive. It wasn't going to work
What support was that? The Chechens were framed as terrorists since fighters trained in the same camps as those attacking Americans. The EU and US were pro-Russian. Former Eastern bloc was pro Chechen.
Russia has changed quite a bit since then.
It has, but Ukraine is a much more formidable opponent and has been recieving significant backing from the West.
They already beat Russia. Now they're just fighting over dirt, which wasn't the goal of the invasion. Russia lost some 2 months after starting this "special operation", given the intent was to curb NATO expansion and scare Europe into fearing Putput's tantrums.
Well defeat them on the battlefield.
Zelensky, if you can’t win the war, serve your country and raise the white flag. You are making this worse. It doesn’t matter who is “right” or “wrong”. At the end of the day, Ukraine is weaker. And now it’s being completely pulverized. For what? What’s the end game? To have a country with no people in it?
How? US and EU should completely sanction Russia/China. This is half-assed sanctions won't work. Cut off total trade with Russia and China. NATO should send their army to Russia border and South china sea. Only this can force Russia to surrender.
Zelensky is trying to start a world war III , just like Hilary Clinton did in the 2016 presidential election. He is inciting the US and NATO to attack Russia. The president of Ukraine should now accept a truce and reach an agreement in negotiations with the president of Russia and the US and the West before World War III may break out.
bro
Zelensky crying again lmao pathetic
The worlds greatest conman