Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Coughdrop addict]

The only thing Putin has going for him is his army of trolls and fifth columnists. The moment someone online implies that the invasion was unprovoked and unjustified, or that Putin isn't a victim of a U.S. plot to force him to be a warmongering fascist dictator against his will, they rush in to defend m'lady's honor with a "But what about the U.S.?" or a sob story about Putin's hurt feelings because the mean ol' EU won't lick his boots. Them claiming to doing so without at least tacitly sanctioning Russia invading and subjugating other nations is as disingenuous as any statement beginning with "I'm not racist, but..."

[Kyriakos]

I am not anti-TWC, but some need to realize just how tiny it is web-wise. Nothing said here matters, so even in that sense it is a good idea to tolerate points of view.
Basically think of something already entirely meaningless, and then compare it to posting against other people here.

[Septentrionalis]

I am not anti-TWC, but some need to realize just how tiny it is web-wise. Nothing said here matters, so even in that sense it is a good idea to tolerate points of view.

Absurd to state that supporting an on-going violent attempt to destroy a European nation is okay because the site is small. Then again, we have heard nothing but absurdities from people who do.

[Septentrionalis]

IOne that means that an argument " We must stop Russia now once and for all" is nonsense. Whatever the outcome, Russia will still be there and so will the possibility of future invasions.

In terms of deterring Russia from future invasions, the best that can be achieved in this war is to demonstrate the price is not worth paying.

I said "stagnation and marginalization in Russia is the key strategy here" precisely because that is the safest way to contain them. And that is working.

The best news in a while is Xi's and China's lukewarm treatment of Russia. They are realizing that Russia is a loser and an ever more dwindling economy, and it would be against China's interest to sacrifice western trade relations by substantially assisting Russia's war.

And that can be achieved by other means than categorically rejecting territorial concessions.

Why do you think that anyone should support territorial concessions to Russia? Should we establish a practice that every imperialist dictator who invades their neighbors and gets beaten should get to keep something as some sort of participation award?

I share the concern of some that it is actually the main 'game' the US government is playing to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia, and that it is in fact quite content Ukraine's ambitions go beyond mere self preservation.

Has Ukraine laid claim to Russian territories now?

[Laser101]

Why do you think that anyone should support territorial concessions to Russia? Should we establish a practice that every imperialist dictator who invades their neighbors and gets beaten should get to keep something as some sort of participation award?

I suppose the neglected factor here is what the people of the territories in question think. Although I think it's pretty safe to assume that's only really debatable in Crimea.

[reavertm]

I suppose the neglected factor here is what the people of the territories in question think. Although I think it's pretty safe to assume that's only really debatable in Crimea.

Then let's play typical Russian and Soviet playbook and repopulate Crimea with more Ukrainians and create atmosphere to encourage those who identify as Russians to leave before any referendum is held. I'm sure our Russian supporters would approve the will of the people.

(my friend's Ukrainian family decided to leave Crimea before 2008 I think. I'm sure decision like that was not taken lightly and it was more widespread)

[Alastor]

In terms of deterring Russia from future invasions, the best that can be achieved in this war is to demonstrate the price is not worth paying. And that can be achieved by other means than categorically rejecting territorial concessions.

I agree with that. The difference, I suspect, is that I also believe this goal has already been achieved. Russia has been humbled. The 2nd best army in the world is rotting in ditches a few kilometers off their own borders.

At this point, if relations hadn't been torched and negotiations were possible, even if Russia was able to acquire in a peace settlement all areas it currently occupies, it would still be a defeat. I'm taking the maximalist approach here, I don't believe that a proper peace negotiation at this phase would end like that, at most it would end with Russia acquiring the Russian-dominated Donbas areas that Ukraine has been shelling for many years. But the point is, even this maximal outcome for Russia would be an embarrassment. Russia spent 2 decades building a reputation for their military that is now in tatters, claimed 4 oblasts and would have gotten maybe half that. After all these losses, how could they present it as a win? Who would believe them? Even their own analysts are angry. If the war ended now, even with the best possible outcome, Russia would still be humbled and defeated.

Of course, nobody expected this, everyone thought Russia would steamroll Ukraine and so prepared for that eventuality. Pushing against Russia much harder than it seems was necessary. Which is why Russia continues. The west doesn't want to humble Russia, they want to completely humiliate Russia and worse. That approach is dangerous, not only because it escalates the current conflict, but because even if the west were to achieve its goals it would only feed revanchism in Russia and eventually a potentially greater war. There is, afterall, the Versailles precedent.

I am not anti-TWC, but some need to realize just how tiny it is web-wise. Nothing said here matters, so even in that sense it is a good idea to tolerate points of view.
Basically think of something already entirely meaningless, and then compare it to posting against other people here.

Come now, this is just obfuscation. Of course Putin cares what people on TWC think enough to pay you to support his genocidal bid for world conquest.

[Kyriakos]

Come now, this is just obfuscation. Of course Putin cares what people on TWC think enough to pay you to support his genocidal bid for world conquest.

Come on man, I am trying to blur the waters a bit; I really need that monthly check from the Kremlin to make ends meet.

[Muizer]

Why do you think that anyone should support territorial concessions to Russia? Should we establish a practice that every imperialist dictator who invades their neighbors and gets beaten should get to keep something as some sort of participation award?

It's not about what is just. It's about what is realistic. Suppose for argument's sake that Ukraine regains all lost territories. What then? It still won't be able to dictate the terms of peace to Russia to consolidate this. Nukes mean that the only way Ukraine can ever be safe from Russia is if it has nukes of its own, or allies with nukes. It would have to join NATO. Something that evidently can never happen unless there is a peace that allows this. Would that be worth giving up territory for? I think it would be. From a Ukrainian perspective of course. Whether Nato would be thrilled with that outcome I'm not sure, but maybe the West will be morally obliged to do this: funding its resistance to Russia only to leave it exposed would be callous.

Has Ukraine laid claim to Russian territories now?

That is not implied by what I said.

[Septentrionalis]

(sorry, had a glitch)

[Septentrionalis]

It's not about what is just. It's about what is realistic. Suppose for argument's sake that Ukraine regains all lost territories. What then? It still won't be able to dictate the terms of peace to Russia to consolidate this. Nukes mean that the only way Ukraine can ever be safe from Russia is if it has nukes of its own, or allies with nukes. It would have to join NATO. Something that evidently can never happen unless there is a peace that allows this. Would that be worth giving up territory for? I think it would be. From a Ukrainian perspective of course. Whether Nato would be thrilled with that outcome I'm not sure, but maybe the West will be morally obliged to do this: funding its resistance to Russia only to leave it exposed would be callous.

I guess we live in quite different factual realities then. The one I am in has Ukraine in the NATO process already for quite some time and it has only grown closer to NATO since the conflict began. The application has been submitted and I do not believe for a second in the legalistic interpretation that there needs to be peace in the sense of Russia not interfering at all. NATO isn't probably going to let Russia decide who gets to join NATO by always orchestrating some military conflict in any country that wants to join.

Furthermore, joining NATO isn't necessarily a must for Ukraine to get protection. NATO is already a troubled alliance because it has detractors and actual antagonists within it, so it remains to be seen what happens to it in the long run as its members can make arrangements outside the framework. Finland very quickly got security guarantees from US and UK when it became obvious that accession will be delayed. Military cooperation beyond anything seen before here started without the blessings of Hungary and Turkey.

In my reality Russia, with its present administration, will not honor any agreements or international laws like they haven't done until now either. Any peace agreement is not worth the paper its printed on, so there is nothing to negotiate. There is something like peace when the Russians retreat and stop attacking. If they are given anything in exchange for a peace agreement, they will take it, use the ceasefire to resupply, and attack again whenever they think the moment is opportune. Just like they did a year ago. As long as Russia is as it is now, only a constant threat of retaliation can keep them at bay.

That is not implied by what I said.

Okay. To me self preservation means not allowing Russia to annex something from Ukraine every few years until nothing remains, which I think will be the case if Russia is made concessions.

[Papay]

https://kyivindependent.com/news-fee...roffensive-yet

Zelensky claims that Ukraine cant start a counteroffensive because of "lack of weapons". Why do i believe that this has more to do with manpower shortages and the realization that a counteroffensive is almost impossible in areas that are heavily fortified?

[Mithradates]

Then again, there's the small issue of even currently Russia occupying roughly 1/5 of Ukraine, which doesn't translate to "Russia is losing".

It does. Russia was not just holding the line, they were on the offensive throughout the winter and achieved nothing, Russia cannot move the front anymore.
For Russia to win, they would need to achieve their objectives: regime change in Kyiv, disarmament of Ukraine and de facto annexing the 4 oblasts (also NATO should return to the condition as of 1997, but I think that nonsense is not on the table anymore)

Ukraines objective is to get back their territories, if they can achieve that they win.
This would include Crimea and Russia will end up with less at the end then what they had at the start = they lose.
When people say that Russia will lose they dont mean it like Ukrainians will take Moscow or something, Russia will lose the conquered territories, thats it.

Sure, then again if Russia/China were sending weapons/money/ammo to Iraq, why expect that invasion by US to have gone as well?

Very early in the war the West made it crystal clear that Ukraine will be supported and supplied, that is when Russia should have withdraw. Instead, they doubled and tripled down on a series of bad decisions overestimating their army and underestimating Ukraine and the West.
And here we are, Putin desperately wants a ceasefire and he will not get it.

The ICC arrest warrant for Putin is a clear message to the Russian elite that normalization will not be possible as long the bunkergoblin is still the Russian president.


-
Here is a good video which explains why the Ukrainians decided to not withdraw from Bakhmut and why the Russian winter offensive was another grave mistake of Putin:


edit:

https://kyivindependent.com/news-fee...roffensive-yet

Zelensky claims that Ukraine cant start a counteroffensive because of "lack of weapons". Why do i believe that this has more to do with manpower shortages and the realization that a counteroffensive is almost impossible in areas that are heavily fortified?

Because you want to see Ukraine/the West lose?

[sumskilz]

Why do i believe that this has more to do with manpower shortages and the realization that a counteroffensive is almost impossible in areas that are heavily fortified?

Because you want to.

[PointOfViewGun]

https://kyivindependent.com/news-fee...roffensive-yet

Zelensky claims that Ukraine cant start a counteroffensive because of "lack of weapons". Why do i believe that this has more to do with manpower shortages and the realization that a counteroffensive is almost impossible in areas that are heavily fortified?

You do realize you undermined your own question yourself?

[Papay]

You do realize you undermined your own question yourself?

No i dont

[Cyclops]

I can't see how anyone expects Russia to "go back to the pre-2014 border". Crimea has a massive russian majority, why think that even the russian public would rather this gets lost than go into full war mode with millions of soldiers?
Then again, there's the small issue of even currently Russia occupying roughly 1/5 of Ukraine, which doesn't translate to "Russia is losing".

Russia hasn't curb stomped Ukraine within a week, and is deploying 1940 tech. That's not winning. Ukraine is surviving, thats a win for them.

The Crimean Russian majority isn't a win either. It's an excuse for an illegal land grab that no one accepts. Russian occupation is a military fact, not a diplomatic one, and as Russian military capability withers, so does their ability to occupy stolen land.

Facts are Russian warmaking capacity is in freefall and Putin keeps making panicky nuclear threats, the propaganda target of Bakhmut remains untaken and Putins mercenary nazi wannabes are complaining about ammo.

Russia isn't winning. When the mud dries let's see how the T55s go vs Leopards.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's like USA trying to invade Iraq and not being able to reach Baghdad while only managing to invade Musul and Erbil. No one here would be calling that "USA not losing" rightly so. The mental gymnastics people employ to keep Russia's chin up is mind boggling.

[The spartan]

Sure, then again if Russia/China were sending weapons/money/ammo to Iraq, why expect that invasion by US to have gone as well?

Iraqi material was not why they got crushed by the US invasion. Regardless, compared to predictions of Russian military capability prior to the invasion, Russia is fairing poorly. They simply aren't doing as near as well as anyone expected.

Nevermind how Iraq was nation-built to three different nations.

A bit more accurate; personally, I'd pin the failure of the Iraqi army on Commander incompetence, and, more importantly, the thorough planning and execution of the strategy by the American military. America had a good invasion plan, Russia did not. It seem Putin thought that the Ukrainians would collapse immediately after an intense rush towards Kyiv. They weren't expecting the Ukrainians to want to resist as much as they did and did not plan accordingly.

[Septentrionalis]

America had a good invasion plan, Russia did not. It seem Putin thought that the Ukrainians would collapse immediately after an intense rush towards Kyiv. They weren't expecting the Ukrainians to want to resist as much as they did and did not plan accordingly.

It is a great solace that good is always, in the end, more competent than evil. Because good allows dissent and pointing out flaws in plans. Good is concerned with things. How things turn out if we do this or that. Evil is about someone's power trip. And then you get a Putin who is fed lies and sugar-coated analyses by sycophants, and intelligence officers telling Putin that invading Ukraine is a bad idea get publicly humiliated and bullied by Putin.