Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Mithradates]

Russia doesn't need to assassinate Zelensky which is really why he's still alive, considering he's nowhere near as well protected as Putin. It's well known that Putin has offered assurances that he won't target Zelensky 1-2 years ago.

lol there have been many attempts to assassinate Zelensky, one of the first ones happened right at the start of the full scale invasion by Kadyrovites then later by the Redut PMC. Since day 1 Zelensky was a target, they wanted to kill him to destabilise the Ukrainian government enough for Russia to take control.

Yeah, yeah bleat on. Your double standards are obvious. If you can't see them I can't help you.

Of course I have double standards because I am able to distinguish between the victim and the perpetrator, the Russian invasion of Ukraine violated international law and is illegal, any Russian operation in Ukraine is illegal and at no point did Russia acquire the right to assassinate Zelensky.

[Ludicus]

Kennedy said in June 1973 that in a conflict between nuclear powers, a fundamental care must be taken: one must not put the enemy in a position where they have to choose between a humiliating defeat and the desire to use their weapons: “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

The European Union has elected Kaja Kallas to the highest diplomatic position in the EU, currently held by Borrell. With her incendiary, reckless, extremist speech, inappropriate for a diplomat, she calls for the destruction of Russia as a sovereign state. She dreams of the ethical fragmentation of the Russian Federation. Next to “diplomat” Kallas, Borrell is a prince.

In my opinion, with Biden re-elected, we run the risk of a nuclear war. With Trump, the worst that could happen is the risk of an American civil war.

The choice of J.D. Vance as vice president was a smart choice by Trump. Vance promises to lift humble populations in rural American areas out of poverty and reverse their economic and social decline. I disagree with critics who say J.D. Vance does not understand what it means to be from those regions. I do not agree with his policies on immigration and abortion, but, being married to an Indian immigrant, it is difficult to accuse him of being racist.

With Biden or Trump, Palestine is doomed to total destruction. With Trump, the agony of Gaza and the West Bank will be faster. With Biden, it will be slower, but the end result will be the same.
As expected, Israel's Knesset votes to reject Palestinian statehood

The resolution passed in the Knesset with 68 votes in favour and just nine against it

[Alastor]

lol there have been many attempts to assassinate Zelensky, one of the first ones happened right at the start of the full scale invasion by Kadyrovites then later by the Redut PMC. Since day 1 Zelensky was a target, they wanted to kill him to destabilise the Ukrainian government enough for Russia to take control.

If you say so. I assume your source comes from Putin's inner circle too. As is the case with Ukraine's attempts to kill Putin.

Of course I have double standards because I am able to distinguish between the victim and the perpetrator, the Russian invasion of Ukraine violated international law and is illegal, any Russian operation in Ukraine is illegal and at no point did Russia acquire the right to assassinate Zelensky.

Uhuh. Tell that to the people of the Donbas, that Ukraine has been bombing for years and years. As for whether Russia's actions are lawful under international law, I have a less partisan view than you that's for certain.

[StarDreamer]

Uhuh. Tell that to the people of the Donbas, that Ukraine has been bombing for years and years. As for whether Russia's actions are lawful under international law, I have a less partisan view than you that's for certain.

Oh the area illegally occupied since 2014? I guess you think Ukraine should give up any territory occupied by foreign invaders "to spare the civilians", and with that you actually mean forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing. Quite the moral "high ground" you are arguing from here.

[Kyriakos]

At least we can agree that (unfortunately, of course) who is right won't matter, because it can't matter. If Trump comes to power, it will be over sooner, with Russia formally annexing more stuff. If the democratic party stays in power, you will still never have Nato armies helping Ukraine so it will continue to be pushed back - until something worse takes place, like a small nuke exploding in Kiev.

[Alastor]

Oh the area illegally occupied since 2014? I guess you think Ukraine should give up any territory occupied by foreign invaders "to spare the civilians", and with that you actually mean forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing. Quite the moral "high ground" you are arguing from here.

Yes that area. Or alternatively the area that Ukraine denied self-determination to and tried to bomb to submission. Either one, depending on perspective.

[Loyt]

Tell that to the people of the Donbas,

Most of the "people of the Donbass" lived in territories, controlled by Ukraine. Even from occupied parts of Donbass most emigrants went to Ukraine.

that Ukraine has been bombing for years and years.

1. Russian proxy-forces had been bombing same "people of the Donbass" at the same time, all this years.
2. Intensity of conflict actually became very low from 2015 and steadily decreased further until new war started. Even by russian sources, in 2021 were was less than ten civilians dead, and most of whose - by stepping on mines.
3. In first month of the war Russia killed more "people of the Donbass", than in all years before by both sides of conflict combined.
4. Donetsk, supposedly bombed awfully for years, damaged much less, than Kharkiv in two months russian army were staying near it. And Mariupol was completely destroyed in one month, second biggest city of the "people of Donbass" btw.
All this appeal to "people of Donbass" is nothing but russian propaganda.

[Loyt]

it will continue to be pushed back - until something worse takes place, like a small nuke exploding in Kiev.

If ukrainian army being pushed back, then Puting is winning anyway, what's a point in using nukes? That won't give military advantage, but definitely can change NATO stance on the matter of participating in war.

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure it would change it. But yes, I can agree that Russia is more likely to use nukes if it ever risks losing/being pushed back.
Either way, I don't see any path where Ukraine actually wins, and a number of paths where Russia does (including Trump elected/removal of US support for Ukraine and collapse of the front by erosion and depleted power).
In some other forum where I post, the delusional attitude in the analogous thread is that russians will have a revolution and kick Putin out.

[Ludicus]

If ukrainian army being pushed back, then Puting is winning anyway, what's a point in using nukes? That won't give military advantage, but definitely can change NATO stance on the matter of participating in war.

So NATO is taking part in this war? I had the mistaken idea that NATO is a purely defensive organisation and that Ukraine is not part of NATO.

Putin warns US of Cold War-style crisis if missiles deployed ...

The US on July 10 said it would start deploying long-range missiles in Germany from 2026 as part of a longer-term militarisation that will include SM-6, Tomahawk cruise missiles and developmental hypersonic weapons.

A dangerous and unprecedented development. The US Congressional military complex believes that in an unexpected attack (the Russians have only 5 to 10 minutes to react) it can destroy 80% of the Russian nuclear weapons on the ground and, with its anti-missile system, survive the Russian attack unscathed.
--
Pompeo's plan for Ukraine WSJ omits major Pompeo conflict of interest in 'Trump Peace Plan'

The plan reads like a wish list for the U.S. weapons industry and Ukrainian business interests: create a $500 billion “lend-lease” program for Ukraine to buy weapons, “bulk up America’s defense industry” and “swiftly admit Ukraine [to the European Union] and help it modernize and develop its economy.”
Those recommendations came from a board member of a major Ukrainian telecom company and the managing director of a D.C. lobby shop that counts a member of Ukraine’s parliament, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the second largest weapons firm in the world, as clients.
But the plan, as presented in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last Thursday, wasn’t marketed as a lobbyist’s work for U.S. and Ukrainian companies, and the authors’ potential conflicts of interest weren’t disclosed. The board member of the Ukrainian telecom company, Kyivstar, was simply identified as “Mike Pompeo,” “Secretary of State, 2018-21.”And the lobbyist was identified as “David J. Urban,” “managing director at the BGR Group and of counsel at Torridon Law.”

[Loyt]

So NATO is taking part in this war?

Did Putin used nukes already? Did NATO decided anything after Putin used nukes? Why are you twisting the message?

[Kyriakos]

The entire point of nukes was that countries with a meaningful number of them wouldn't risk being humiliated (as long as anti-nuke weapons don't exist).
Should tell you that Russia cannot lose even in a hypothetical where Ukraine has 1000 gen5 warplanes. They will be nuked (which is worse than the current trajectory).
Is this fair or noble? Duh, of course not. But it's real.

[Lusitanio]

So NATO is taking part in this war? I had the mistaken idea that NATO is a purely defensive organisation and that Ukraine is not part of NATO.

I mean, at what point would you consider NATO to be there?
In Ukraine, we have NATO weapons, tanks, missiles, ammunition, instructors, multiple types of vehicles, etc. NATO also provides logistical and communications support via satellite. There are also thousands of ex-NATO military men fighting there. NATO is all there, except in name.

[Paul Atreides]

So...russia should sue for peace to retain Kursk oblast. I mean, to stop the killing and bring peace and harmony to the galaxy. To seal the deal, perhaps granting Portugal to Ukraine so that peace can prevail?

[Lusitanio]

So...russia should sue for peace to retain Kursk oblast. I mean, to stop the killing and bring peace and harmony to the galaxy. To seal the deal, perhaps granting Portugal to Ukraine so that peace can prevail?

What kinda of argument is even that? I know you're just trying to annoy me now, but you could at least try harder, the lack of caring is almost insulting, come on, you need to improve your propaganda skills.

[Kyriakos]

It's not an argument, just a reaction. Ukraine has lost a territory the size of England/Greece. It's bizarre to expect them to keep anything in Kursk.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://apnews.com/article/russia-uk...f07800ac2cae9e

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine’s top military commander says his forces now control 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles) of Russia’s neighboring Kursk region, the first time a Ukrainian military official has publicly commented on the gains of the lightning incursion that has embarrassed the Kremlin.
Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi made the statement in a video posted Monday to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Telegram channel. In the video, he briefed the president on the front-line situation.
“The troops are fulfilling their tasks. Fighting continues actually along the entire front line. The situation is under our control,” Syrskyi said.
Russian forces are still scrambling to respond to the surprise Ukrainian attack after almost a week of fierce fighting.

I fully expect those here who have spent the last several years saying that the weaker Ukraine must immediately surrender to the stronger Russia and refusal to do so means that any and all suffering of Ukrainian civilians is 100% Ukraine's fault, to now say that Russia must immediately surrender to Ukraine and any refusal to do so means that any and all suffering of Russian civilians is 100% Russia's fault.

Who would like to go first?

[Alastor]

https://apnews.com/article/russia-uk...f07800ac2cae9e

I fully expect those here who have spent the last several years saying that the weaker Ukraine must immediately surrender to the stronger Russia and refusal to do so means that any and all suffering of Ukrainian civilians is 100% Ukraine's fault, to now say that Russia must immediately surrender to Ukraine and any refusal to do so means that any and all suffering of Russian civilians is 100% Russia's fault.

Who would like to go first?

Why? Because Ukraine managed a successful incursion (after several failed attempts, but we don't talk about those, those weren't Ukraine's doing, they were "patriotic Russians") over a 2000km long border... suddenly Ukraine is stronger than Russia? What kind of insane troll logic is this?

This was a propaganda victory, absolutely. It humiliated Putin, absolutely. What exactly is it going to change on the actual strategic level of the war though? Especially what does it change that is to the benefic of Ukraine? Will Ukraine hold this territory? Doubtful. They don't even claim to want to hold it anyway, Zelensky openly said they just want to terrorise some Russian civilians so "they feel the pain". Did it stop the disaster Ukraine is facing in the Donbas? Not really. Is it going to make the west more willing to support them? Why, is there more the west can do? Yes, it did humiliate Putin and the Russian state. Great, but what good is a humiliated Putin to Ukraine? That's the question one would need to answer to evaluate this incursion. And the answer can't be "herp Putin deserves humiliation derp" or any such variant, because that doesn't help Ukraine either.

[Kyriakos]

Area in Ukraine that Russia controls is over 20%.
Area in Russia that Ukraine control is... less than 0.1%?

[PointOfViewGun]

Area in Ukraine that Russia controls is over 20%.
Area in Russia that Ukraine control is... less than 0.1%?

Yet, that tiny percentage represents an area Ukraine took over from Russia in its border crossing in a week and its more than the area Russia captured from Ukraine its own border crossing in months. It's mind boggling that Russia could not stop Ukraine from crossing its own established border.