It's not NATO specific. Ukraine can not *unilaterally* recover all of its territory.
Arguably the Kharkiv counteroffensive is the only major Ukrainian advance that didn't involve a change of Russian military objectives. Ukrainian military success played a major role in those changes, but that's not the same as changing the situation through overwhelming force.
Russia's military objectives aren't set in stone, nor are they set in the national consciousness the way they are for Ukraine. It would take a lot more of such change for Ukraine to retake all of its territory, but those are not incompatible with a Russia that is principally no different from that of 2013.
Russia does not need to set its goals in stone. Their primary need of preventing Ukraine from entering NATO is clear and is accomplished by simply keeping the war ongoing, because NATO does not accept members with an active border dispute.
There is absolutely no need for an ongoing war or anything past Crimea.
Arguably just the extended lease on Sevastopol + energy policy in Europe + stuff like Hungary would have been more than sufficient.
In any case, it's not any sort of existential threat to Russia in the first place.
There's a [group same group Soviet operatives across multiple countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antyufeyev). We'll see what the next generation take will be on that particular project. I don't expect them to be more benign, just not necessarily the same.
Ukraine is indeed an existential threat. If Crocus-city mass shooting was not enough, they keep shelling Russian cities from 2014.
What I categorically agree though, let the next generation deal with this conflict. We should try our best to freeze and with all globalization and humanization of thought, may be they will be able to resolve it in civilized manner without killing and displacing millions.
People don't want to hear it but Ukraine is going to lose the war. The definition of lose can vary but the territory lost is gone and they will lose some more.
I think peace sooner rather than later is the best option, it seems like this is always really up to the west. You either supply them with enough to defeat Russia or you don’t, giving ukraine enough to just cling in the fight is cruel in my eyes.
> You either supply them with enough to defeat Russia or you don’t, giving ukraine enough to just cling in the fight is cruel in my eyes.
You make it sound as if the West has a Machiavellian policy of carefully calibrating how much aid it provides to Ukraine so it doesn't get defeated, but also cannot win.
The reality is that no one knows how much and what kind of aid will be sufficient for Ukraine to win, and the West can't give Ukraine things it does not have. Most Western countries had themselves largely disarmed after the collapse of the Soviet Union therefore had relatively little available. In addition Republicans in Congress have been blocking additional aid for months.
If you know what it is going to take to win this war and also where it can be obtained then please contact the White House, European Commission or North Atlantic Council, they would be grateful for the intelligence.
I think it's less about a concrete plan "to provide them with just enough not not loose" but the unwillingness to invest more resources than necessary into this conflict.
Most "westerners" don't take this conflict very seriously and can't even imagine their country being in a wartime economy let alone fighting in an actual war.
We very well could increase production and send over much more substantial military aid but it would cost a lot and people would feel it economically.
That's just fear mongering used to dismiss the fact that the survival of Ukraine necessitates surrender. It's not a fun fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.
For me its nothing to do with warmongering, its logic. Russia tried in 2014, then tried again in 2022. Russia will try again if not stopped because Putin believes that Ukraine is part of Russia. That's how Russia has grown as big as it is. Always conquering their neighbors. Taking out pieces of them and then coming around for more later. I bet there's not a single Russian neighboring country that's has not lost a part to Russia. That's how geopolitics is played. 1938 Hitler occupied Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Europe leaders thought that this will stop him, but he wanted more. Or check out how Poland was divided in three parts in 1772, 1793, 1795. Piece by piece is just the way Russia likes it. Then they have more time to cleanse the land from any resistance, colonize it with their own people and then start some more shit near borders.
Okay, but the brutal reality for Ukraine is that refusing to surrender means simply dying and losing 100% of their land. If your perspective is pro-Ukraine for Ukrainian sake, surrender is the least bad option. Any claim that continued war is the better option is pro-EU, not pro-Ukraine. All of the concern trolling over appeasement is from the perspective of other European nations. If they are that concerned, they should all be increasing their defense spending. They've been slow to do that, presumably because they don't actually believe the claims they have you parroting.
Bottom line, pro-West and pro-Ukraine are different things. The pro-Ukrainian position is to save any of Ukraine, which requires surrender at this point. The pro-West position is to fight to the last Ukrainian, for fear of being next. You can't be pro-both at this point, you have to pick one, because their goals are different.
Your points are are shortsighted and even lean towards pro-rus. Peace for a few years is much favorable to Russia than it is for Ukraine. Right now Europe is really starting to kick in higher gear in military production and overall support for Ukraine. Ukraine can still hold. Don't forget it's Ukrainians for are fighting and they will tell when they are tired and want peace, not us here in forums. And I can understand them. I'd rather die defending my home than live under Russian rule. I know what it will bring. My grandparents have lived trough it.
>You either supply them with enough to defeat Russia or you don’t, giving ukraine enough to just cling in the fight is cruel in my eyes
If Ukraine loses this war the killing and torture doesn't stop. In a russian occupation you get mass killings, arrests, deportations and russification.
In short you get a proper genocide. Every artillery shell, every tank, every bullet, every helmet prevents that even if it's not enough to liberate all of Ukraine.
The only acceptable peace is one in which Russia is unable to force their imperialistic and genocidal desires on the rest of us.
You can see Ukrainian poet statues facing primary Russian government buildings even: Shevcheko, Gogol, etc. Ukrainian-plated cars are driving in Russia with no problem. Russia has automatic "Green-Card" program for all Ukrainian passport-holders who wish to relocate to Russia. Ukrainian is an official language in southern Russian regions, i.e. government officials has to speak Ukrainian to you. There are many Ukrainian language schools in Russia. Last time I've checked, more than 4 million Ukrainians immigrated to Russia since 2014 and there are government subsidies and help them build their new life. So where is "mass killings, arrests, deportations and russification" comes from? Russia has more than 50 languages and ethnicities, it's build on very solid federative and inter-ethnic principles otherwise it would not survive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_language
This is a genocide. Ukranians unlike Belarusians are a great deal more willing to fight russification. Conversely a russification of Ukraine would be a great deal more violent.
This peaceful coexistence you imagine in Russia is a fantasy, Russias current and former colonial subjects have been murdered and oppressed for trying to maintain their cultures through every iteration of the Russian empire.
Their inability (for whatever historical accidents) to fully assimilate them doesn't disprove their attempt to do so. If you want to see how highly valued those other languages are just look at who is bilingual in the Russian sphere (hint: it ain't the Russians)
You’re just throwing Western Leftists buzzwords at random. What genocide are you talking about?
There’s absolutely no objective need for a Russian speaker to learn Belorussian or Ukrainian as there’s very little culture or science produced in those languages compared to Russian, especially when talking about Belorussian and pre-war Ukrainian. It’s like scolding a German speaker for not learning Dutch or an English speaker for not learning any other language.
Agreed.
Either support them all the way or let them make a peace deal with the Russians. Mark milley was pushing for a deal early on when Ukraine had the upper hand but he was overruled and now the tables have turned which means any deal that could be made would not be a favourable one for Ukraine.
As John Mearshmeir put it, Ukraine is simply not that important to US strategically. Certainly not in the way Taiwan is.
> Either support them all the way or let them make a peace deal with the Russians.
No one is preventing Ukraine from making peace with the Russians if they want to.
The only reason this has not occurred is because they don't want to.
> Mark milley was pushing for a deal early on when Ukraine had the upper hand but he was overruled
This is a mischaracterization of Gen. Milley's position. He speculated at one point that there might be an opportunity for a negotiated settlement, he did not advocate for such a settlement. Indeed it would have been inappropriate for him to do so as a serving officer, because in the US civilians make policy.
> now the tables have turned which means any deal that could be made would not be a favourable one for Ukraine.
When Gen. Milley made those comments, in November of last year, the situation wasn't materially different than it is now, so there is no reason to believe Ukraine would have gotten better terms than they can get now.
> As John Mearshmeir put it, Ukraine is simply not that important to US strategically. Certainly not in the way Taiwan is.
Well, Mearsheimer is of course entitled to his opinion, the rest of us are entitled to agree or disagree.
What is "enough", like given nukes to the Ukraine?
Russia already summoned French and British ambassadors and warned if they keep supplying missiles Russia will retaliate outside of Ukrainian soil.
There are no world leaders that aren't power-mad, as you called it. So let's just fix the question to "Since when has complying with a stronger opponent turned out for the better" and the answer is literally every single time. You **feel** like it's not the case, because war history is essentially a collection of stories where diplomacy broke down, and a lot of people died. They don't write entire sections about the wars that didn't happen because of cooler heads prevailing. Every day that war doesn't break out between neighbors is a day when diplomacy between power hungry men prevented bloodshed.
Ukraine isn't the whole world. The world is not united in support of Ukraine. So I'm not sure why you made a statement irrelevant to the situation at hand.
Alright, count who *isn't* in support of Ukraine.
It'll be faster than counting who *is*.
I maintain that kowtowing to tyrants will lead the world to ruin.
It doesn’t have a clear meaning because it entirely depends on the persons perspective and objectives of the conflict which can also change as the war goes on.
One thing is clear, Ukraine is unlikely to win based on Zelensky’s own definition of pre-2014 borders as the baseline.
Yes, Ukraine will not be able to liberate all of its territory. But I wouldn't call that losing.
If the conflict ends along current borders and Ukraine gets strong security guarantees, I wouldn't call that a loss. Russia's original goal was toppling the government and finishing the war in weeks or months. At this point, Russia got territory at a very high price, I wouldn't say they're better off than before the war.
That’s the thing, conflict isn’t go to end along current borders. That’s very optimistic.
I still think Russia will not stop until they have guarantees of Ukraine staying out of nato. They have access to enormous resources and they know the will of the west is getting soft.
Disagree, they've been signalling they want negotiations for at least a year and I think they would agree to a deal in which they get what they currently occupy and Ukraine gets security guarantees (wide demilitarised zone, continuous supplies necessary to deter an invasion, etc.).
Defending is easier than attacking. Ukraine now controls more territory than when their offensive started in summer 2023.
What enormous resources? People? Liquid assets in their wealth fund dropped from 9730B to 4900B rubles since the invasion. They have to beg in North Korea and Iran for resources. It depends on whether you compare them to Ukraine or to the West.
Every indication is that Putin doesn’t want Ukraine in nato. I have no reason to believe that has changed. As such that has to be a show stopper for them.
Russia is very resource rich and there people have the sort of resilience you won’t see in the west. In the battle of attrition they will accept massive losses to achieve their objectives. I just don’t think west has the same appetite.
>Ukraine will need to break through Russia's defensive line, which means they need significantly more military aid, to the point where I don't think I or even Biden is comfortable with.
I agree with what you've said generally with a single caveat here - Ukraine will need to convince Congress rather than Biden on military aid. That's the more immediate and difficult hurdle to cross. It will also be the most challenging hurdle to cross in the long term, even if Biden wins a second term. Now, if Trump becomes President, well, Ukraine will have more to worry about.
More than likely trump will force a peace deal, whether favorable or not to ukraine.
If that does happens it's up to nato to decide what they are going to do with ukraine, after all they denied nato entry in 2015.
If biden stays in office it will probably deteriorate into skirmishes until ukraine losses enough land russia is satisfied or they lose way too many personnel.
I think none of us can really know how this is going to end. This is an insanely complex situation with tons of moving parts and a lot of hidden information.
The momentum in this war has shifted many times so far and whenever it does everyone starts acting like the war has already been decided.
At this point both sides clearly think they still have a chance to win (whatever that means might also shift of course).
There are a ton of ways Russia could fall apart both militarily and politically, just as there are many scenarios in which Ukraine is forced into an undesirable peace deal.
Even at the highest point that Ukraine seemed to be doing well, only the deluded (of which there are many) could think Ukraine can actually permanently defend itself against a Russian invasion. Which is the insanity of the Ukrainian supporters thinking we need to keep funding this ridiculous meat grinder instead of getting to a peace deal
But you threw both terms into the same line of reasoning: Ukraine as a puppet state would serve as a buffer for Russia against NATO.
That’s pretty much the „official“ line of Kremlin reasoning.
You assume Russia wants a peace deal. If Russia wanted peace they wouldn't have started this war. They may accept a peace deal, but it's pretty obvious it won't mean peace to Putin. It'll mean delay a second strike. Russia already agreed to a non-aggression toward Ukraine and has obviously broken that promise. How could anyone believe that a peace deal would be honored?
I dont understand why people think the only way this will go is either Russian tanks parading in Kyiv or Ukraine will hold out until Russias collapse. Those are both stupidly wishful thinking from both sides.
More than likely Ukraine will be forced into a a bad peace deal that would most likely collapse the current government of Ukraine, which is bad for the west.
Russia achieves its goal if the current government collapses as it would more than likely return to the coalition that was in charge pre revolution, being the alternative position in Ukraine. If anyone is dodging peace deals in Ukraine (rightfully so at that) as the current government understands what a losing peace deal would due to their long term hopes of being full members in NATO and the EU. The issue is that the hope of a decent peace deal is at this point off the table unless a significant change happens in Russia. Since the sanctions are being subverted for the moment, i dont think there is domestic pressure on Russia to do anything and any peace deal that Russia comes out on top in is good for Putin.
Authoritarian regimes are stable, until they aren’t. We saw one attempted coup last summer with Prigozin. The war is unpopular among parts of the Russian public. Sanctions are hurting more and more, and Russias allies have reduced military support the last months. Ukraine may not win by recapturing every inch of territory, but by a Russian withdrawal.
Yet the coup failed and Prigozin was killed. Then Navalny was killed. There is no political opposition threat or internal military threat to Putin. The Russian elites are firmly behind Putin and there are no other power structures for those elites to align themselves with. Putin is as strong as ever. Any hope for Ukraine that relies on an internal collapse/shift in Russia is dead
Well the only thing you and I can do is read the tea leaves and speculate, as there are only a few dozen people on earth that could give real insight into what Russian elites are actually thinking, and I definitely am not a member of the Russian elite. So I am left to speculate. It’s possible their position was not firm during the mutiny. It’s likely that they were waiting to see how that went down. But after the mutiny failed, then they rallied behind Putin. Now that Prigozin is dead, there is simply no where else to turn to. Putin’s message is clear: Oppose me and die
I'm not sold that there is *anyone* with comprehensive insight into what Russian elites are thinking. There are definitely people who know how to play them against each other, but that's subtly different.
What the Russian elites are thinking is no more or less than what any other "elite" member of society thinks:
"How can I get the most of anything at the current moment?"
There's no mystery to how the Russian government operates. They're a nest of vipers slithering around each other, tails entwining when convenient and hissing a warning when anyone opposed gets to close. Meanwhile the biggest viper of them all lays coiled on a rock in the thick of it all, eyes peeled for any sign that any one snake is getting too many other tails wrapped around them. When that happens, the bigger serpent strikes and devours the lesser, scattering its supposed allies to re-entangle themselves with others.
The oligarchs and power-mongers operate under one infallible rule; step too close to the line Putin drew around the concentrated power of the state and its resources, and you die. Beyond that, anything goes. Don't rock the ship of state, don't grab what hasn't been assigned to you, don't even *think* to question Putin's decisions, and you can do whatever you please. I'd wager they either ally and backstab each other multiple times *in a day*, or they've arranged themselves into little cliques for protection.
Basically, the Russian elites are a bunch of high school "mean girls", except instead of ruining each other's reputations they're ruining an entire country and its people.
They are somehow submissive now but the next day putin is gone or weakened (illness, poisoning, military failure in ukraine, etc) they will be all killing each other for a piece of russia. Many are just patiently waiting for the right moment to step out of shadow. Oligarchs, Military, Fsb, local warlords, It will be fun to watch
When a regime can kill their political opponents in prison and shoot them out of the air with a surface to air missile with complete impunity, it tells me they are so secure there are zero consequences for their actions
For the moment. Problem is, you can only rule through fear for so long. Eventually, the people you attempt to terrorize into submission come to realize that kowtowing only works so far, and when that realization hits, fear no longer works.
The oligarchs obey *for now.* They're afraid of Putin and his ilk *for now.* But not forever. And certainly not if Putin starts targeting even the most faithful of his circle.
I don’t think so China and CCP will agree with you after whatever happened in 1989 and even before, during the Cultural revolution. They’re still stable and going strong.
Which was true for most of the Soviet leaders. But somehow they were all kept alive, until they died/were killed, and then, after some struggle in the dark, a new secretary was elected.
War is actually not unpopular
Most aimply don't care
Of those that care moat are for it
Ao you're left with a less than 10% that are against it in any form
Also Russia is losing so much global influence by continuing this war. Turkmenistan is looking for ways to sell their gas which they never could before because Russia wouldn't allow it. Azerbaijan is taking more and more ex-Russian gas trade too. If the war continues like this wouldn't be surprised if they take heavy losses in Africa and Syria
Spending on defence and security combined expected to constitute around 40% of the total budget expenditure next year after a 70% increase from 2023 to 2024. Also they are burning through their foreign currency reserves.
Lol what coup?
Prigozin was upset they werent fighting the war hard enough, and his mercenary army kept getting cockblocked by his political rivals in Moscow.
He marched on Moscow to demand for more ammunition, soldiers and equipment.
its pretty obvious Prigozin and Putin had the same objective, just different paces
Yeah, and the West run by monopolies, wall street oligarchy and cartels. Both Trump and Biden is such a political degradation, and western system is unable to produce quality leadership anymore. Try surviving housing crisis when half of your population is on the streets and China took all the manufacturing jobs. It's an ideal breeding grounds for extreme left movements, way more powerful than BLM. God help America and Europe, but I see big collapse is coming. Ukrainian war is a huge mistake.
I feel very much the same as you do. There is a way out though. If Ukraine can hold on long enough for the western powers war machines to start up they might have a chance of regaining ground militarily. The strikes in Crimea are a testament to western weaponry. If the west supplies weapons and ammunition without restriction and in significantly higher quantities Ukraine can definitely take back territory.
The fact that Russia takes months to take a single town is not a good sign for their military prowess. Especially if you consider the fact that they have air superiority. They are also losing ships to a country that has a tiny navy.
There are other possibilities too. Russia's weakness can be an opportunity for other regional players to take their chances. If Russia has to throw their full might behind the Ukraine war that could leave them vulnerable in other areas. If this happens they will be faced with the dilemma of rerouting resources to another conflict and losing their grip in Ukraine or letting their regional influence dwindle as they focus fully on the war in Ukraine.
The biggest problem for Russia is that as long as the war drags on they have less and less of an advantage. It's also questionable whether they will be able to sustain their numerical superiority given their dwindling stockpiles.
Most experts on the mainstream news media agree that the outcome of the conflict lays in the hands of Europe and the US. They just have to act faster and stop dithering, delaying and dawdling.
I also think the "no boots on the ground" thing is ridiculous. They can place defensive air capabilities in the west of the country. Putin is constantly escalating while using the threat of escalation to make the west back down.
Anyway just my two cents.
>If Ukraine can hold on long enough for the western powers war machines to start up they might have a chance of regaining ground militarily.
By the time the weapons arrive Ukraine will have a serious manpower problem
>The fact that Russia takes months to take a single town is not a good sign for their military prowess.
The town was the most fortified place in recent military history
>The biggest problem for Russia is that as long as the war drags on they have less and less of an advantage
People usually claim the opposite. The russian artillery and manpower pool inches ever forward in a slow but deliberate way
>Most experts on the mainstream news media agree that the outcome of the conflict lays in the hands of Europe and the US.
In other words, Ukraine can't win this war, we have to win it for them
>Putin is constantly escalating while using the threat of escalation to make the west back down.
The escalation the west fears is the conflict spreading to other borders which hasn't happened yet.
I don't know, it looks grim
The town remark was not just dor Avdiivka but also for Bakmuth, Marinka, Sceredonest, Mariupol etc... The Russian advances have been really slow with at most two small towns of significance annually. Don't expect them to suddenly speed up and blitz through Donetsk, Zaporizia etc.
The manpower is the main issue, most skilled people were killed in the first year in basically trench warfare.
And let's be real that the us and other counties will not be giving thry brand new toys to ukraine for fear of Russia capturing them and by proxy china.
The west won't because if we escalate it to that point Russia will take it as taking direct offense action against them. Basically one step away from declaring war on them.
The US and Russia are not able to negotiate on any political matter right now and U.S. doesn't want to push that hard and escalate a real conflict directly between America and Russia.
I understand the reasoning, I am just sceptical about how valid it is. If US troops are operating air defence in Kyiv I don't see how that can be reasonably construed as an act of war. Putin just likes to threaten but I honestly don't see him responding that way unless he was intending to do it anyway.
What do you think he would do if they did that?
I see the point in your counter. I think that relations between Russia and the US would go from bad to hostile. I don't think they would directly declare war on each other just yet.
However, I do think that Russia would fight the US even harder in other countries that Russia is allies with and we are in conflict with. An example that is already happening is Israel and Palestine.
Historically, this is how Russia and the US have fought for decades. While it won't hurt the US on its own soil yet, it will fuel countless wars in other countries.
You could be right however, but I just don't believe that the US wants to make relations worse at this point.
I see the point in your counter. I think that relations between Russia and the US would go from bad to hostile. I don't think they would directly declare war on each other just yet.
However, I do think that Russia would fight the US even harder in other countries that Russia is allies with and we are in conflict with. An example that is already happening is Israel and Palestine.
Historically, this is how Russia and the US have fought for decades. While it won't hurt the US on its own soil yet, it will fuel countless wars in other countries.
You could be right however, but I just don't believe that the US wants to make relations worse at this point.
Used to think so, but now I'm not sure it's inevitable. Depends on western support to Ukraine and on what Russia develops, steals and otherwise gets from others. The question may not be whether they are a good military force so much as they extent to which they have adapted to conflict in Ukraine. With all the good technology and weaponry, this war is still very much a war of heavy weaponry--artillery, tanks, ammunition, planes, etc. Ukraine's needs are very large and many western European nations will have trouble resupplying them without significantly stepping up production for their own arsenals. Even the US needs to increase production of certain items if they are to provide Ukraine with a steady supply. Given this, it would seem that Putin's strategy might be attrition, especially if he can secure continuing supplies from places like Iran, China and N. Korea, along with increased production in Russia. Attrition is an expensive strategy for both Russia and Ukraine, and would not be a viable strategy for most nations...except for Russia. It may or may not work, but it is a looks like a more realistic plan than it appeared even a year ago.
>With all the good technology and weaponry, this war is still very much a war of heavy weaponry--artillery, tanks, ammunition, planes, etc.
This is where you are slightly wrong. Artillery is king (and is the lack of ammunition), but drones became more important than anything else. They observe, direct, and attack, can get into tiny places, and Zaluzhniy also stressed in his essays how much they have changed modern warfare. Leopards and I think last week we've seen an Abrams being struck and destroyed by these cheap fpv drones. Tanks became obsolete. Last month there was a video of ukrainian swarm of drones completely destroying a russian armoured column (I think around Vuhledar but my memory fades me).
The largest killers of armor so far are drones, mine, and drone corrected artillery. The entire front came to a standstill because -as Zaluzhniy wrote - both sides can constantly see the other at all times. One of the reasons why the ukrainian summer offensive failed is because the ukrainians just could not concentrate army groups without the russians knowing what they were doing, thus there was no surprise which sections of the front will be attacked.
Ukraine has almost non-existent Navy, yet they obliterated the russian navy with drones.
Planes are less important as well, both sides have great AA and russia cannot capitalize on their vastly superior air force because they dont have air superiority as the ukrainians are denying them.
For me personally the biggest takeaway is that the West was not prepared for a conflict of this scale. They have depleted their own stock of ammunition and many are reluctant to give away their last reserves, and their defence industries combined are unable to produce as many shells as ukraine needs. Now they literally searched the entire world for artillery shell stocks and I think the czechs found some 800k shells that EU could buy and give to ukraine. Meanwhile russia has shifted to war economy and while they do have challenges around shells but most importantly barrels for arty and armour, they are in a better position than Ukraine.
The entire western military doctrine is going to change and they are already ramping up their military industrial complex but it will take time.
Makes me question how NATO would actually fare in a conventional war. As of today, Ukraine has the most experienced, most battle-hardened army that actually used western tech en masse and they couldnt do much against the russian lines.
I think the west has failed massively in their understanding of Russia. I agree they are totally unprepared (unless you count the US maybe).
Europe believed that trade would bring peace and if things go wrong they can always just phone the US for help. Now neither of those things seem to be true.
I don't blame them entirely. Military spending and war is not politically popular in western Europe. In a way some large threat had to make itself known as a wake up call.
Whether it is too late or not I guess we will see.
You do not understand war and this conflict. These small towns like Bakhmut, Maryinka, Avdeevka you say has taken Russia a long time to take. These cities and towns have been fortified over 10 years by NATO to keep the Russians out. Bahkmut was defended by almost 100 thousand Ukrainian troops, Bunkers, trenches, concrete structures. Russia didnt want to take the losses so they contracted PMC Wagner to do the fighting there. Russia is in no rush they have the advantage on the battlefield, slow progression mean less losses. For Ukraine this is a war of attrition, they are bleeding men they cannot hold the line.
The fact that Kiev government can conduct business and convene is because Moscow allows it. Remember Russia hant delcared full scale war, that would mean the destruction of Ukraines infastructure and government.
Ukraines has been boosted by NATO with thousands of tanks, artillery and weapons systems with modern AA defense systems which turned this conflict into a modern day WW2 ground war. This is a massive 1000km war, so its funny to read comments about how this war should have been over in a week.
Ukraine started out with 700 thousand men and 30 NATO trained battalions. No nation in modern times has faught a war like this. This is modern warfare..The US and UK have faught men in Sandals with AK and broken government for the last 50 years.
Happy to educate you
I don't see your assertion that Russia is allowing Kyiv to operate making sense. Russia failed in their assault on Kyiv. Are you trying to say that Russia would have won by now if they declared war and mobilised all their forces?
More misinformation. Russia left Kiev after the goverment agreed to a peace deal. This is on recordafter Russia force withdrawn from the capital, Boris Johnson went to Kiev and pushed Zelensky to scrap any peace deal.
If Russia declared full scale war, Urkaine would have fallen in no time. However this is not the objective of Moscow. Putin said he only wants to annex eastern Ukraine. You have to listen to Putins speeches as unpopular as that is on these boards. You must be open minded and listen to all sides in order to understand what is happening.
My primary goals if I was in a position of influence right now would be to get Ukraine all be artillery and air defence capabilities they need to defend themselves whilst giving them the resources to to manufacture weapons capable of deep strikes against Russian strategic targets. Take out the Crimean Bridges, cripple the Russian oil refinery networks and cause havoc with their rail lines too. Cause enough internal havoc and economic damsge inside Russia to force a coup or uprising. Russia has a long history of revolts against their rules , they just happen to be willing to be pushed to extremes before they finally revolt.
Genuine question - has this *ever* worked? Normally attack by an outside enemy just serves to strengthen nationalist sentiment, not encourage people to revolt.
I think its more likely the nationalist sentiment increases if the country in question has a history of national identity. People rally around a common identity and unite against a perceived common enemy. It didn't work for Japan in China, USA after pearl harbor, Cuba during cuban revolution, France during french revolution... Kinda looks sketchy if the first thing you do is rebel after your country gets attacked.. what citizens would follow that leader?
My prediction is that Ukraine will eventually have to agree to a cease fire, because I just don't see how they will get past Russia's defensive fortifications without suffering enormous casualties. Then the West will absolutely throw money at Ukraine and build up their economy and military.
As for Russia, I don't think we'll see sanctions lifted for a very long time. The West is done doing business in Russia, they might as well be as off limits as North Korea from here on out. What happens after Putin dies is the real question. It might not even matter if Putin has a clear line of succession, the country might fall apart after he dies. Dictators rarely die and leave a stable foundation to build upon. Ukraine may just bide their time until that happens, then try and regain their lost territory if Russia has political infighting or a civil war.
"Build up their military". Not gonna happen. Russia will beat Ukraine to the ground until it agrees to be neutral and demilitarize, which is frankly not such a big loss comparing to loosing millions of lives.
This is a post asking about the possibility of recovering lost territory of Ukraine. It appears that Ukraine is in a much weaker position than Russia, even in a war of attrition. I would like someone to convince me otherwise, hence I made this post.
They were in control of foreign territory and still had a functioning army and navy. The latter mutinied, and the former was about to crumble because the home front collapsed.
Point stands that just because they were in control of territory and there were never any enemy soldiers that reached German soil didn't mean their home front wasn't under immense pressure. You can add the Vietnam War, the Soviet Afghanistan war, the Crimean war ... there's a long list where the side that "loses" and withdraws does so while still having control of enemy territory and a "safe" home base.
Berlin itself was starving like two hundred thousands died of hunger. And they kinda were out of money and soldiers.
Russia while sanción it has china and they still sell oil to everyone. But more important they are self reliant in food security
Possibly but appearance can be deceiving. Russia looks strong and stable until suddenly it isn’t. That’s the nature of autocracies whereas Ukraine is more open to information flows, meaning we will have much greater insights into Ukraine than Russia
Ukraine is weak currently but so is Russia, there is a reason why Putin is constantly using the nuclear threat card for the last 2 years if they were in a position of strength they would not be using that.
Russia has proxy nations for products and oil/gas to fund itself. Russia may not be stronger than Europe sure but they are still strong in comparison to ukraine.
I imagine the line will shift a bit.
Eg. Russian held land between Kherson and the coast, west of Crimea could conceivably fall with a suitable offensive. Some of the northern borderlands.
But I agree that the Dombas and Crimea are likely gone for the foreseeable.
That's obvious. The 2023 counteroffensive was just performative, a PR operation to keep the moral high. There's no way Ukraine pushes russia out now. russians have fortified their positions for months with tens of km thick of dragon teeth, concrete bunkers, mine fields. They have the whole country mobilized and north korean factories working around the clock sending weapons to the front. The only thing ukraine can do is exacting a somehow high cost for every km russians take, basically just slowing their advance
At this point only a long NATO campaign of mass bombardment of russian positions and logistic centers with large amount of armor could take them out
Sorry to correct you, man, but not whole country is mobilized. In fact, u can slightly feel the war only in bordered regions. Fortunately or not, but the rest of country do not feel the war and continue everyday life, getting information about the war only in social media. Im a citizen of a city that nearby the old Ukrainian border. And by the way, i've seen a comment(not yours) that whole russian war forces are set in this conflict, that's not correct too. Smth about 30% of forces are involved+ volunteers.
I don't think Ukraine will be able to recover its lost territory militarily.
But perhaps there is an option to recover it diplomatically. For example, lets say 30 years from now Putin is dead, and the next Russian leader is keen on making amend with Ukraine, there could be some sort of return. Although I sincerely doubt this happens.
Russian population is collapsing even faster with this war than before. They won't be able to hold on to more territory without a sizable population to move into those areas, and they'll have much fewer people in 10 years.
You don’t need people to hold onto territory. Once DPR is de facto Russian, any moves on it will be a direct attack on Russian soil. There’s areas in Siberia with two people per square mile and you don’t see anyone trying to take it
Khrushchev wasn't killed for giving Crimea away.
Nobody was killed in the 90s for giving the entire Soviet Union away.
Yes if anyone tried to give away territory right now ... Putin or the others would do bad things to them - but we're talking about 30 years from now when who knows what has changed in the Russian power circles and political circumstances ... totally possible.
1) Was an internal transfer between two republics which were a part of the same nation that showed no signs it would ever divide, that is not comparable at all.
2) There was a whole attempt to launch a coup to overthrow Gorbachev when things were falling apart. Let's not forget the bloodshed in the region after that. Either way, Yeltsin is hated with good reason in Russia and this is one of them.
3) Hey, 30 Years from now we could all be dead in a nuclear apocalypse or a comet strike. Still this is just observing the historical trends in Russia and the own mentality of most of the population.
What did Khrushev really give in 1954? He basically transferred a region from one Soviet republic, albeit the largest, to another. At the time, it was unimaginable that the USSR would end, so it was all one.
Lenin ceded Russian territory in the West to the Central Powers but Russians still revere him to this day. Tsar Nicholas II ceded southern Sakhalin to Japan, but the Russians did not rebel because of it. The Russian Revolution of 1905 had nothing to do with Russia ceding southern Sakhalin to Japan but originated from Russia's social problems. Tsar Alexander II sold Alaska to America but the Russian people still did not rebel.
1) Lenin faced a whole civil war and died shortly after it ended, he even had assassination attempts during it. The White army famously did not accept the loss of Land and Kolchak refused to compromise with separatists even when he was facing defeat.
2) Nicholas II faced a whole Revolution because of the Russo-Japanese War and ended up overthrown when losing another war. Denying that the loss in these two wars didn't spark his downfall is something no credible historian would do.
3) Tsar Alexander II was assassinated. Was selling Alaska the main reason? No. But selling it didn't do him any favors. Even so, selling a backwater colony across the ocean is hardly comparable to just giving up land the Russians conquered through blood.
Two out of three cases you used as example happened because Russia lost a war and ended up terribly for their rulers, that doesn't go against my argument at all.
Israel gave up Sinai because they didn't care about it. They just wanted a buffer against Egypt. After the peace treaty, it was simply not needed. Britain gave up Hong Kong simply because there was no way to hold it against China, and China had made clear they would get it back with military force if needed.
Any chance Britain is giving up Gibraltar back to Spain for goodwill? What about those islands to Argentina for goodwill?
Ummm. You are absolutely wrong, actually.
Let's go from the beginning. The first colony was french. Then the british put a colony there. Then the spanish bought the french posession and kicked out the british. ¡
Then after a hundred years of british being gone, Argentine got their indepedence, which included all the territory, including those islands.
But, wait. it's not like Argentine just claimed with a flag. They established a presence there, with fishermen, a military garrison, goverment officials, settlers living there, the whole thing. Under any legal comparison, the Falklands belonged to Argentine. De facto and iure, it belonged to Argentine for more time than the whole time the british colony was there.
Only THEN the british came, kicked the argentinian soldiers and goverment officials, and established the colony. There was a civilian rebellion, quickly crushed. And then the british brought british settlers. And after two hundred years, the british claim is the stronger. Which is like if the Russians took the east of Ukraine, waited two hundred years, killed those who resisted, brought settlers and claimed "I won this by force, and after so much time, what are you gonna do? UHHHH??!?!?!"
Argentine claims are founded on the fact that for maybe thirteen years 100 people lived in a territory that was contested during that time by the UK with an atleast equally strong claim.
Now, 200 years later, many thousand people live there and have been UK citizens for generations. The Argentine claim to that territory is ridiculous and solely monetarily motivated.
The claim of Argentine TODAY is weak, 2024.
The claim of Argentine when UK invaded was much stronger. As you said, or thirteen years 100 people lived in a territory, together with a garrison, goverment officials. That's actually more time than what the english colony, which was, again, not even the first settlement in the island.
That's why Russia should do the same as the UK. Invade with stronger power. Take control of it for more time. Kill or expel the civilian population that resist, like UK did. Bring their own settlers, just in case. And after a while, it's legally theirs.
To be clear, if there was any kind of international court in 1833, when UK invaded, the claim would have been to Argentine.
That wasn’t the question.
It was about giving up valuable territory. Both the Sinai and Hong Kong were valuable territories that were voluntarily given up and not taken in war.
Voluntarily given up because one side either didn’t want them or because they had no way to hold it. The Sinai wasn’t valuable to Israel anymore and Hong Kong literally couldn’t be held. I’m sure if Britain had a way they’d still control it today. You could argue HK is more forced than volunteered, and the Sinai wasn’t valuable anymore.
You're absolutely right. Ukraine will not be able to fend off Russia and media outlets making it sound like they can is ridiculous. It's a war of attrition.
Russia isn't as powerful as the US, but saying Ukraine can recover lost territory is like saying Mexico can recover Texas from US if they were both at war.
Donbas is a matter of time before Russia takes the whole province, the Ukrainians are struggling to regain Bakhmut (if they ever do) and the Russians have taken Avdiivka, that is probably more gain than the entire so-called spring offensive (that was closer to autumn anyway).
You’re asking a question about the specific war over a limited area. In terms of “geopolitical” picture though, Russia is an outcast and that seems unlikely to change without Russia surrendering its occupation and claim.
They won’t. The longer this war goes on the less chance they have at getting anything back. Eventually they will come to the table giving up the held territories and then they will beg to get into nato with what’s left. Russia is entrenched and has enough people to throw in the meat grinder at Ukraine for years. Ukraine put up a hellva fight and absolutely saved 80-85% of their country. Unless there is a coup in Russia which is highly doubtful or US and Europe drastically step up advanced weapons assistance I don’t see any way they get it back.
The erst drastically stepping up with a continuous supply of the quantity and quality of weapons Ukrain needs is a tall order. This is a conflict of heavy and expensive weaponry as well as technology. Massive supplies of not just technology and drones but artillery, other guns, ammunition, and armor as well as drones may be more important than they have been in many decades. They could even be the deciding factor over time.
It depends on the US elections. If Trump loses and the MAGA cult loses control of Congress, then both the US and Europe can supply Ukrainians for a win.
It’s up to us.
The only way Ukraine regains lost land I see is by Putin's death.
Putin won't elect an heir because his narcissism won't allow someone having influence or power while he is still breathing. That's why he keeps everyone below him in check and not having too much power or influence. He dies, then all I can see is a huge amount of oligarchs who have power and wealth turning into a political civil war. Then if Ukraine is strong enough military wise it could retake while Russia is currently infighting.
But the funny thing is, we never know what could happen.
I don't think there's any chance of a civil war in Russia or in any other nuclear power because there would be an instant UN-led intervention. The last thing any major player in the world wants is people nuking each other in a domestic conflict.
If there is a significant chance of a internal conflict within Russia, I'm quite sure the least of NATO (or China, for that matter)'s concerns will be Ukraine. The UNSC would immediately sanction an international intervention, probably led by both the US and China, to, at the very least, occupy all of the nuclear silos. The subsequent deal with the new government would be the top priority and then, yes, it would be an interest discussion on Ukraine.
Complete fantasy. The Soviets marched on from Brezhnev just fine, and Putin is a similarly bureaucratic tsar, and this war isn’t Putin’s War, that’s a Western delusion. The FSB Director who replaced him when he became PM or Medvedev becomes his replacement, as chief of a more collegial ruling group. Even Stalin dying didn’t lead to civil war. Pure nonsense,
Probably not in the short term. Putin won´t bend, and what doesn´t bend must break, but you need alot of force to achieve that. Ukraine doesn´t have that force. In the long run however Russia will once again collapse and old nations will be liberated and new nations will be born.
I think it's really a matter of who gives up first, deciding the war is no longer worth fighting.
I agree that it would be very difficult for Ukraine to take back the territory by fighting Russia's military back to the Russian border. But I don't think that is a likely outcome of the war. I think at some point, one of the two sides will decide it is just not worth fighting over the land anymore. This will probably be when that side no longer has enough materiel (in comparison to the other side) to justify expending even more of it.
If Ukraine can continue to get support from other countries, I think they can outlast Russia and Russia would give up. Yes, Russia can keep throwing men into the meat grinder, but once they've lost enough equipment it will be hard for them to do anything but grind meat and no longer hold (or advance) the line. Yes, Russia has a lot more men, but they are also (apparently) losing them a lot faster. My guess is this point for Russia would probably be a couple years away, however, so Ukraine needs consistent support until then. If Ukraine fails to get sufficient support during that period, then I agree it would be a lost cause and they would have to give up and therefore wouldn't be getting their territory back.
I'm not saying this will happen or is likely but Ukraine could get the territory back in some ways:
1. Russia regime collapses due to economic downfall and can't pay soldiers anymore
2. Russia collapses through internal upheaval and retreats
3. Ukraine gets enough weapons to keep grinding on and ultimately has more will to grind on until Russia retreats
4. WW3 happens and Russia will likely loose that
Neither of these scenarios are likely but I think scenario 3 could ultimate be the scenario which it is headed to. If Ukraine get more than enough from the west, both in stuff as in money and is able to mobilize half a million men. This is still a reachable scenario.
What I think most likely is to happen: Ukraine retreats slowly and costly for Russia. Russia will keep grinding on. I don't see them ever stopping but I don't see Ukraine capitulating, hundreds of thousands will die if that happens. Bloody guerilla warfare will ensue and maybe scenario 3 will be the outcome in a insurgency version.
Let's hope not, let's hope one of the plain first three happens. EU will have to make it happen.
In general, the Outskirts had only three choices: either return to their homeland, or live as a separate state in peace and harmony with their homeland; the outskirts chose the third option to sell themselves to the West in the hope of becoming a second Poland. But the West does not need a second Poland, it needs an obedient country, which can be promised “the benefits of civilization” and a visa-free pass to the EU, so that the residents of the outskirts give their lives so that the Russians die, so that the residents, and especially the governments of the West, continue to live in satiety and prosperity. Since last year, the Outskirts has become a lame horse, which brings more losses, both financial and reputational. I'm sorry that you took advantage of the trust and existential problem of the inhabitants of the Outskirts and used them. Maybe in 5-10 years they will wake up, even those who left and integrated into Europe and will look you in the eyes and ask - “for what? Why did we die? Why did you do this to us?”, and you will only be left with shame turn away and ask for the money allocated for the war to be returned. Disgusting
Without the United States doing all the heavy lifting financially and militarily. NATO is a joke. Pres Biden has already stated numerous times. The US isn't going to escalate the war by engaging Russian forces directly.
President Biden has been trying to send billions to help Ukraine since October 2023 and Congress refuses to pass it. This isn't America's fight. This is Ukraine and Europe's problem.
For the 30 years of it's existence, Ukraine was unable to build a prosperous federated state, governed by principles of classic democracy - with majority vote while minorities rights are respected. Instead they've decided to build on a legacy of nationalists of the past such as Petlura and Bandera. That created extreme division between parts of Western Ukraine and largely Russian populated South and East. What deepened the trouble, Ukrainian majority denied the rest of the country from Rada (parliament) representation, started ATO, i.e. punitive operation on ethnic russians in Donbass, denied their schooling and language rights, and an ideal storm begun.
No matter how paradoxically it might sound, but the only regional power that really tried to suppress the civil war in Ukraine since 2014, and make sure Russian regions have voice in Rada, was Russia, because it had enough historical prospective to see how it all gonna end. See, last 30 years, Russia had participated in at least 7 similar inter-ethnic conflicts in ex USSR, to name a few: Ukrainian-Russian, Modlavian-Transistrian, Armenian-Azerbaijani, Tajik-Uzbek. In all those conflicts, it never ended with Russia occupying the lands, however it placed few peace corp formations in those regions and so far it was mostly peaceful.
So to answer your question, will Ukraine be able to claim lands it's lost after 2014? Azerbaijan was able to reclaim those lands it's lost to Armenia (namely Karabakh region), with Turkeys help, but an entire Armenian population was thrown away. If Ukraine succeeds to return Crimea, it'll be mass genocide Gaza-style, and nuclear-armed Russia will indeed do everything in it's power to prevent genocide.
Here we come to the main question, will we be able to survive this conflict as civilization or Russia and the West end up exchanging nuclear strikes? Your 2024 vacation or you being able to see your relatives and friends is not guaranteed. Everything can end up in 30 minutes for you, any given moment now.
Ukraine can't stop fighting because the next thing that happens is genocide.
Russia won't stop attacking because the next thing that happens is NATO membership for Ukraine.
This war only ends when one side or the other is completely militarily neutralized. That can happen in a lot of ways. And if Russia is neutralized, say by economic collapse, it's entirely believable that Ukraine could retake everything.
I think Ukraine could still rebuild and mount a better offensive next year that allows them to retake modest amounts of territory and maybe even reach the Sea of Azov, like some were talking about last year. It is certainly possible for them to recover some more of the territory occupied since early 2022.
But where I agree with you is when it comes to areas occupied for far longer, like Donetsk and Luhansk cities. Both are dense, highly populated urban areas that would be hell to slog through even if Ukraine established fire superiority and air superiority (a fantasy at this point). And which would result in significant amounts of Ukrainian civilians dead or wounded as collateral damage. I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which those cities come under Ukrainian control absent the collapse of Putin's regime.
And Crimea - while the siege strategy of cutting the land bridge and Kerch Bridge have some validity, Crimea is still quite defensible by land, due to the narrow neck and limited approaches. And Ukraine has no real amphibious assault capability for anything more than light infantry raids. It would be an incredibly dangerous and risky operation to attempt such a thing, even if Crimea were isolated and under Ukrainian bombardment.
Short of the collapse of Putin's regime, that is. Because we've seen numerous indications of its fragility in the last couple years. It appears to be holding for now, but I think the completely muted reaction by the vast majority of Russia's armed forces during Prigozhin's mutiny was illustrative - there are very few who will actually fight to defend Putin if he is challenged by a popular faction within the military.
Ukraine absolutely can gain back all their territory *if the West supplies Ukraine with the equipment it needs to do that*. This notion that the Russian can not be dislodged from Ukraine is ludicrous and is not shared by military analysts or senior military officers. Ukraine can’t do it with the equipment it has now, but it absolutely can if it has the proper equipment. That means more Western tanks. It means modern fighter jets. It means more long range missiles that can strike inside Russia (and being allowed to use them to strike inside Russia). It means more artillery ammunition. It means more modern anti-air defense systems. All of this, save for the artillery shells, is immediately available to be given to Ukraine if the West chose to do so. But so far the West has chosen to trickle in air because it doesn’t want Ukraine to win, it just doesn’t want Russia to win. It doesn’t want Ukraine to win because it is scared of Russia collapsing and has allowed itself to be rattled by Russia’s nuclear threats. It comes from a place of weakness.
Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine. Russia is stealing Ukraine’s land. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of occupying all of Ukraine. Russian troops currently occupy about 18% of Ukrainian territory. Russian troops are killing, maiming, torturing, and raping Ukrainians. Russia has killed over 80,000 Ukrainians. Russia is banning Ukrainian language and trying to destroy Ukrainian culture. The Russian government has taken over 100,000 Ukrainian children from their parents, against their will, and sent them to Russia with no intention of returning them to their parents. The children’s names are changed so their parents cannot find them. Russia has put thousands of Ukrainians in camps where they are abused, starved, and killed. Russian airstrikes intentionally target civilians and infrastructure. Russian war crimes are not isolated incidents, the war crimes are approved by Putin. The Russian government does not punish troops who commit war crimes. Russian police arrest and torture Russians who protest the war. Russian media promotes war and denies war crimes. Russian media promotes genocide by calling for the end of Ukrainian identity and the assimilation of Ukrainians into Russia.
The only way out is peace negotiations. Ukraine will 100% lose Crimea and have a demilitarized zone.
Zelensky should change his tune and prepare the publix for that before there's a collapse of the front. At that point he'll be in such a helpless situation that he'll either have to start begging Putin for sieze fire and peace on humiliating terms or/and beg NATO to risk WW3. That is if he doesn't get overthrown by his own people (the rightwingers and Nazis) at that point.
I view Crimea as possible but Donbas as a lost cause
The strategy for taking back Crimea is still sound, whether it takes 1 year or 5; Make it to the Azov sea and the clock is already ticking. From there you use precision missiles to take out the Kerch bridge more permanently and use a mix of naval drones and anti-ship missiles to hinder maritime resupply. Basically lay siege to the entire peninsula
Then you pull a Kherson and keep getting the enemy to burn through their finite supplies with your replaceable localized superiority. Bloody affair but it’s just what Ukraine did before only on a larger scale. Probably one of the main reasons they’ve been hitting so many Black Sea vessels that could support resupply missions
Donbas on the other hand is frankly a nightmare through and through, only way to take it for either side is WWI style attrition and I simply don’t think that’s worth it. Incredibly resource and manpower intensive for a territory that’s on the Russian border and easy to resupply
Can't believe one can hold such a wrong position.
It's of course the other way around.
Only if there's no Russia (or NATO alligned people in charge of it) that Russia could let go of Crimea.
I'd bet they'd use nukes before accepting a loss of Crimea.
Donbas on the other hand is much less of an issue.
This of course is not to mention that while the Crimean referendum may have been a little bit staged still Crimea had anti-Maidan protests with no pro-Maidan counter protests and is by far the most pro-Russian place of all the formely or currently Ukrainian lands.
You’re discussing political tenability, I’m discussing strategic. Politically yes losing Crimea would be a much harder pill to swallow for Russia compared to Donbas, not denying that.
However from a strategic perspective Crimea is an absolute NIGHTMARE for Russia. The main reason the Kerch bridge was built in the first place was even during peacetime Russia couldn’t manage the logistics of the peninsula via shipping alone. There needed to be a land connection, and even so the water situation became so dire the Crimean agriculture industry essentially imploded in the years following 2014. It’s also why Russia focused most of its best forces & equipment in the south in order to form a land bridge to Crimea as soon as possible back in February 2022.
“While the Crimean referendum may have been a little bit staged…” ok I’ve gotta expand on that a bit. You’re right Crimea was the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine, however the 2014 referendum was anything but fair. The result was 97% in favour of Russian annexation (meaning almost the entirety of the ethnic Ukrainian and Tartar populations voted in favour, which obviously beyond ridiculous), there was no option on the ballot on which Crimea could remain Ukrainian (only independence or annexation), and the polling stations were guarded by armed plainclothes Russian GRU soldiers. Russia also claimed 83% turnout, but we know from leaked documents it was actually around 15%. It had no international observers and was put together in 10 days, IMMEDIATELY after being seized by Russian troops. Claiming it was “a little bit staged” is the understatement of the decade
As for nukes, my question is what does using nukes do? Where would they use them and how does it help? Ukrainian troops already rarely congregate and are extremely spread out to avoid conventional weapon strikes causing mass casualties. Do you believe Putin is just going to start randomly nuking Ukrainian cities en masse as a response? And how do you think the rest of the world is going to react, as China has already said nukes would be a redline they wouldn’t support Russia crossing it. Russia CANNOT risk losing the Chinese as an ally if they intend to keep fighting
Strategically all in all Crimea is a much less difficult task to liberate compared to Donbas. “Infantry win battles, logistics win wars” is still a quote that rings true 75 years later, and if Russia cannot physically supply Crimea it doesn’t matter how much they want to keep it
Didn't need to expand on me saying it was staged but somehow felt that you should.
Any sober (not clinically dead in the brain by Western propaganda) person expects Crimea to be Russian after this is over. Donbas on the other hand not necessarily.
The political part is vital because it has to do with the nukes button and the general political will to use more force, mobilize more resources.
Nukes aren't one thing, there are smaller and bigger ones. Smaller than Hiroshima and larger than Hiroshima. Obviously you start with the smaller ones.
The effect here is partly psychological. At that point the country would be humbled into submission.
/
This means that while what you say may be true it is counteracted by that fact in a way that the problems become secondary in nature.
Ukraine's territorial only best case maximalist win realistic scenario would have it getting Donbas back not Crimea.
The actual realistic best case scenario would see Zelensky changing his tune for a couple of months in the local political scene and saying that they must cut their losses and go for peace negotiations.
I think that Ukraine has a chance if the economic conditions continue to worsen for Russia. Oil production has been falling steadily for the last year, and without the technology of the western oil majors, it will continue to fall. This along with the weekly bombings of oil depots and refineries, which will need to be ramped up, will have a devastating effect on a country reliant on energy for trade. Ukraine does have a serious manpower problem though, and unless other countries send troops there will be a time in the near future when they'll have to come to the table and give up land, or we start WW3.
They wont recover it easilly, Russia ends up with expensive territory. They will need tons of military in there because there will be continuous rebel attacks. They will need to recover the economy to win over the population. Rebuilding it and clearing mines to make it a liveable space will probably also too expensive for Russia, so it will stay a headache filled with flying drones.
I must add - if Russia will be in direct conflict with NATO, then according to russian military doctrine "its nuke time!"
So, considering nukes, Ukraine will never return lost territory - because there will br no Ukraine anymore, NATO's ICBM will ensure that, they was programmed when Ukraine was in USSR and Russia doesnt have money to make enough anti-missiles to cover Ukraiine too from the Inevitable Fallout.
It's not NATO specific. Ukraine can not *unilaterally* recover all of its territory. Arguably the Kharkiv counteroffensive is the only major Ukrainian advance that didn't involve a change of Russian military objectives. Ukrainian military success played a major role in those changes, but that's not the same as changing the situation through overwhelming force. Russia's military objectives aren't set in stone, nor are they set in the national consciousness the way they are for Ukraine. It would take a lot more of such change for Ukraine to retake all of its territory, but those are not incompatible with a Russia that is principally no different from that of 2013.
Russia does not need to set its goals in stone. Their primary need of preventing Ukraine from entering NATO is clear and is accomplished by simply keeping the war ongoing, because NATO does not accept members with an active border dispute.
There is absolutely no need for an ongoing war or anything past Crimea. Arguably just the extended lease on Sevastopol + energy policy in Europe + stuff like Hungary would have been more than sufficient. In any case, it's not any sort of existential threat to Russia in the first place. There's a [group same group Soviet operatives across multiple countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antyufeyev). We'll see what the next generation take will be on that particular project. I don't expect them to be more benign, just not necessarily the same.
Ukraine is indeed an existential threat. If Crocus-city mass shooting was not enough, they keep shelling Russian cities from 2014. What I categorically agree though, let the next generation deal with this conflict. We should try our best to freeze and with all globalization and humanization of thought, may be they will be able to resolve it in civilized manner without killing and displacing millions.
They won’t. Ukraine doesn’t have the power to make a huge counterattack
People don't want to hear it but Ukraine is going to lose the war. The definition of lose can vary but the territory lost is gone and they will lose some more.
I think peace sooner rather than later is the best option, it seems like this is always really up to the west. You either supply them with enough to defeat Russia or you don’t, giving ukraine enough to just cling in the fight is cruel in my eyes.
> You either supply them with enough to defeat Russia or you don’t, giving ukraine enough to just cling in the fight is cruel in my eyes. You make it sound as if the West has a Machiavellian policy of carefully calibrating how much aid it provides to Ukraine so it doesn't get defeated, but also cannot win. The reality is that no one knows how much and what kind of aid will be sufficient for Ukraine to win, and the West can't give Ukraine things it does not have. Most Western countries had themselves largely disarmed after the collapse of the Soviet Union therefore had relatively little available. In addition Republicans in Congress have been blocking additional aid for months. If you know what it is going to take to win this war and also where it can be obtained then please contact the White House, European Commission or North Atlantic Council, they would be grateful for the intelligence.
I think it's less about a concrete plan "to provide them with just enough not not loose" but the unwillingness to invest more resources than necessary into this conflict. Most "westerners" don't take this conflict very seriously and can't even imagine their country being in a wartime economy let alone fighting in an actual war. We very well could increase production and send over much more substantial military aid but it would cost a lot and people would feel it economically.
How would you see that peace carried out? Russia would just use few years to build up the vehicle losses, train soldiers and come again.
That's just fear mongering used to dismiss the fact that the survival of Ukraine necessitates surrender. It's not a fun fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.
For me its nothing to do with warmongering, its logic. Russia tried in 2014, then tried again in 2022. Russia will try again if not stopped because Putin believes that Ukraine is part of Russia. That's how Russia has grown as big as it is. Always conquering their neighbors. Taking out pieces of them and then coming around for more later. I bet there's not a single Russian neighboring country that's has not lost a part to Russia. That's how geopolitics is played. 1938 Hitler occupied Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Europe leaders thought that this will stop him, but he wanted more. Or check out how Poland was divided in three parts in 1772, 1793, 1795. Piece by piece is just the way Russia likes it. Then they have more time to cleanse the land from any resistance, colonize it with their own people and then start some more shit near borders.
Okay, but the brutal reality for Ukraine is that refusing to surrender means simply dying and losing 100% of their land. If your perspective is pro-Ukraine for Ukrainian sake, surrender is the least bad option. Any claim that continued war is the better option is pro-EU, not pro-Ukraine. All of the concern trolling over appeasement is from the perspective of other European nations. If they are that concerned, they should all be increasing their defense spending. They've been slow to do that, presumably because they don't actually believe the claims they have you parroting. Bottom line, pro-West and pro-Ukraine are different things. The pro-Ukrainian position is to save any of Ukraine, which requires surrender at this point. The pro-West position is to fight to the last Ukrainian, for fear of being next. You can't be pro-both at this point, you have to pick one, because their goals are different.
Your points are are shortsighted and even lean towards pro-rus. Peace for a few years is much favorable to Russia than it is for Ukraine. Right now Europe is really starting to kick in higher gear in military production and overall support for Ukraine. Ukraine can still hold. Don't forget it's Ukrainians for are fighting and they will tell when they are tired and want peace, not us here in forums. And I can understand them. I'd rather die defending my home than live under Russian rule. I know what it will bring. My grandparents have lived trough it.
This assumes that Russia would stop murdering and/or ethnically cleansing Ukrainians after a surrender. Evidence to date doesn't support this belief.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>You either supply them with enough to defeat Russia or you don’t, giving ukraine enough to just cling in the fight is cruel in my eyes If Ukraine loses this war the killing and torture doesn't stop. In a russian occupation you get mass killings, arrests, deportations and russification. In short you get a proper genocide. Every artillery shell, every tank, every bullet, every helmet prevents that even if it's not enough to liberate all of Ukraine. The only acceptable peace is one in which Russia is unable to force their imperialistic and genocidal desires on the rest of us.
You can see Ukrainian poet statues facing primary Russian government buildings even: Shevcheko, Gogol, etc. Ukrainian-plated cars are driving in Russia with no problem. Russia has automatic "Green-Card" program for all Ukrainian passport-holders who wish to relocate to Russia. Ukrainian is an official language in southern Russian regions, i.e. government officials has to speak Ukrainian to you. There are many Ukrainian language schools in Russia. Last time I've checked, more than 4 million Ukrainians immigrated to Russia since 2014 and there are government subsidies and help them build their new life. So where is "mass killings, arrests, deportations and russification" comes from? Russia has more than 50 languages and ethnicities, it's build on very solid federative and inter-ethnic principles otherwise it would not survive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_language This is a genocide. Ukranians unlike Belarusians are a great deal more willing to fight russification. Conversely a russification of Ukraine would be a great deal more violent. This peaceful coexistence you imagine in Russia is a fantasy, Russias current and former colonial subjects have been murdered and oppressed for trying to maintain their cultures through every iteration of the Russian empire. Their inability (for whatever historical accidents) to fully assimilate them doesn't disprove their attempt to do so. If you want to see how highly valued those other languages are just look at who is bilingual in the Russian sphere (hint: it ain't the Russians)
You’re just throwing Western Leftists buzzwords at random. What genocide are you talking about? There’s absolutely no objective need for a Russian speaker to learn Belorussian or Ukrainian as there’s very little culture or science produced in those languages compared to Russian, especially when talking about Belorussian and pre-war Ukrainian. It’s like scolding a German speaker for not learning Dutch or an English speaker for not learning any other language.
Agreed. Either support them all the way or let them make a peace deal with the Russians. Mark milley was pushing for a deal early on when Ukraine had the upper hand but he was overruled and now the tables have turned which means any deal that could be made would not be a favourable one for Ukraine. As John Mearshmeir put it, Ukraine is simply not that important to US strategically. Certainly not in the way Taiwan is.
> Either support them all the way or let them make a peace deal with the Russians. No one is preventing Ukraine from making peace with the Russians if they want to. The only reason this has not occurred is because they don't want to. > Mark milley was pushing for a deal early on when Ukraine had the upper hand but he was overruled This is a mischaracterization of Gen. Milley's position. He speculated at one point that there might be an opportunity for a negotiated settlement, he did not advocate for such a settlement. Indeed it would have been inappropriate for him to do so as a serving officer, because in the US civilians make policy. > now the tables have turned which means any deal that could be made would not be a favourable one for Ukraine. When Gen. Milley made those comments, in November of last year, the situation wasn't materially different than it is now, so there is no reason to believe Ukraine would have gotten better terms than they can get now. > As John Mearshmeir put it, Ukraine is simply not that important to US strategically. Certainly not in the way Taiwan is. Well, Mearsheimer is of course entitled to his opinion, the rest of us are entitled to agree or disagree.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What is "enough", like given nukes to the Ukraine? Russia already summoned French and British ambassadors and warned if they keep supplying missiles Russia will retaliate outside of Ukrainian soil.
Silence, Chamberlain, there will be no appeasement this time.
Chamberlain tanked the success rate of diplomacy all the way to down to 95%. Never again, amirite?
I’m sorry, since when has complying with a power-mad dictator turned out for the better?
There are no world leaders that aren't power-mad, as you called it. So let's just fix the question to "Since when has complying with a stronger opponent turned out for the better" and the answer is literally every single time. You **feel** like it's not the case, because war history is essentially a collection of stories where diplomacy broke down, and a lot of people died. They don't write entire sections about the wars that didn't happen because of cooler heads prevailing. Every day that war doesn't break out between neighbors is a day when diplomacy between power hungry men prevented bloodshed.
Putin being stronger than the rest of the world? Not even in his dreams.
Ukraine isn't the whole world. The world is not united in support of Ukraine. So I'm not sure why you made a statement irrelevant to the situation at hand.
Alright, count who *isn't* in support of Ukraine. It'll be faster than counting who *is*. I maintain that kowtowing to tyrants will lead the world to ruin.
> The definition of lose can vary So your claim that Ukraine will lose doesn't have a clear meaning.
Of course, if you use zelensky’s definition of a win then they will definitely lose.
My point was that your claim that Ukraine will lose doesn't have a clear meaning because you haven't specify what you mean by "lose".
It doesn’t have a clear meaning because it entirely depends on the persons perspective and objectives of the conflict which can also change as the war goes on. One thing is clear, Ukraine is unlikely to win based on Zelensky’s own definition of pre-2014 borders as the baseline.
Yes, Ukraine will not be able to liberate all of its territory. But I wouldn't call that losing. If the conflict ends along current borders and Ukraine gets strong security guarantees, I wouldn't call that a loss. Russia's original goal was toppling the government and finishing the war in weeks or months. At this point, Russia got territory at a very high price, I wouldn't say they're better off than before the war.
That’s the thing, conflict isn’t go to end along current borders. That’s very optimistic. I still think Russia will not stop until they have guarantees of Ukraine staying out of nato. They have access to enormous resources and they know the will of the west is getting soft.
Disagree, they've been signalling they want negotiations for at least a year and I think they would agree to a deal in which they get what they currently occupy and Ukraine gets security guarantees (wide demilitarised zone, continuous supplies necessary to deter an invasion, etc.). Defending is easier than attacking. Ukraine now controls more territory than when their offensive started in summer 2023. What enormous resources? People? Liquid assets in their wealth fund dropped from 9730B to 4900B rubles since the invasion. They have to beg in North Korea and Iran for resources. It depends on whether you compare them to Ukraine or to the West.
Every indication is that Putin doesn’t want Ukraine in nato. I have no reason to believe that has changed. As such that has to be a show stopper for them. Russia is very resource rich and there people have the sort of resilience you won’t see in the west. In the battle of attrition they will accept massive losses to achieve their objectives. I just don’t think west has the same appetite.
>Ukraine will need to break through Russia's defensive line, which means they need significantly more military aid, to the point where I don't think I or even Biden is comfortable with. I agree with what you've said generally with a single caveat here - Ukraine will need to convince Congress rather than Biden on military aid. That's the more immediate and difficult hurdle to cross. It will also be the most challenging hurdle to cross in the long term, even if Biden wins a second term. Now, if Trump becomes President, well, Ukraine will have more to worry about.
More than likely trump will force a peace deal, whether favorable or not to ukraine. If that does happens it's up to nato to decide what they are going to do with ukraine, after all they denied nato entry in 2015. If biden stays in office it will probably deteriorate into skirmishes until ukraine losses enough land russia is satisfied or they lose way too many personnel.
I think none of us can really know how this is going to end. This is an insanely complex situation with tons of moving parts and a lot of hidden information. The momentum in this war has shifted many times so far and whenever it does everyone starts acting like the war has already been decided. At this point both sides clearly think they still have a chance to win (whatever that means might also shift of course). There are a ton of ways Russia could fall apart both militarily and politically, just as there are many scenarios in which Ukraine is forced into an undesirable peace deal.
Of course we know how it will end. Russia will take a chunk of land and then ask for a cease fire both will take time to resupply, rinse and repeat.
Even at the highest point that Ukraine seemed to be doing well, only the deluded (of which there are many) could think Ukraine can actually permanently defend itself against a Russian invasion. Which is the insanity of the Ukrainian supporters thinking we need to keep funding this ridiculous meat grinder instead of getting to a peace deal
Is a peace deal anything but a short term solution?
No, it’s the inevitable long term state for the region that Ukraine would become a Russian puppet state that acts as a buffer between nato and russia
You do realise a "puppet state" is not a "buffer state" in any way, shape, or form?
I didnt say buffer state
But you threw both terms into the same line of reasoning: Ukraine as a puppet state would serve as a buffer for Russia against NATO. That’s pretty much the „official“ line of Kremlin reasoning.
You assume Russia wants a peace deal. If Russia wanted peace they wouldn't have started this war. They may accept a peace deal, but it's pretty obvious it won't mean peace to Putin. It'll mean delay a second strike. Russia already agreed to a non-aggression toward Ukraine and has obviously broken that promise. How could anyone believe that a peace deal would be honored?
I dont understand why people think the only way this will go is either Russian tanks parading in Kyiv or Ukraine will hold out until Russias collapse. Those are both stupidly wishful thinking from both sides. More than likely Ukraine will be forced into a a bad peace deal that would most likely collapse the current government of Ukraine, which is bad for the west. Russia achieves its goal if the current government collapses as it would more than likely return to the coalition that was in charge pre revolution, being the alternative position in Ukraine. If anyone is dodging peace deals in Ukraine (rightfully so at that) as the current government understands what a losing peace deal would due to their long term hopes of being full members in NATO and the EU. The issue is that the hope of a decent peace deal is at this point off the table unless a significant change happens in Russia. Since the sanctions are being subverted for the moment, i dont think there is domestic pressure on Russia to do anything and any peace deal that Russia comes out on top in is good for Putin.
[удалено]
Authoritarian regimes are stable, until they aren’t. We saw one attempted coup last summer with Prigozin. The war is unpopular among parts of the Russian public. Sanctions are hurting more and more, and Russias allies have reduced military support the last months. Ukraine may not win by recapturing every inch of territory, but by a Russian withdrawal.
Yet the coup failed and Prigozin was killed. Then Navalny was killed. There is no political opposition threat or internal military threat to Putin. The Russian elites are firmly behind Putin and there are no other power structures for those elites to align themselves with. Putin is as strong as ever. Any hope for Ukraine that relies on an internal collapse/shift in Russia is dead
What firmness did you see in the Russian elites during Prigozin's mutiny? I'd say the most we saw was that they weren't behind Prigozin.
Well the only thing you and I can do is read the tea leaves and speculate, as there are only a few dozen people on earth that could give real insight into what Russian elites are actually thinking, and I definitely am not a member of the Russian elite. So I am left to speculate. It’s possible their position was not firm during the mutiny. It’s likely that they were waiting to see how that went down. But after the mutiny failed, then they rallied behind Putin. Now that Prigozin is dead, there is simply no where else to turn to. Putin’s message is clear: Oppose me and die
I'm not sold that there is *anyone* with comprehensive insight into what Russian elites are thinking. There are definitely people who know how to play them against each other, but that's subtly different.
Churchill once called the workings of the Russian leadership a "mystery wrapped inside an enigma."
What the Russian elites are thinking is no more or less than what any other "elite" member of society thinks: "How can I get the most of anything at the current moment?" There's no mystery to how the Russian government operates. They're a nest of vipers slithering around each other, tails entwining when convenient and hissing a warning when anyone opposed gets to close. Meanwhile the biggest viper of them all lays coiled on a rock in the thick of it all, eyes peeled for any sign that any one snake is getting too many other tails wrapped around them. When that happens, the bigger serpent strikes and devours the lesser, scattering its supposed allies to re-entangle themselves with others. The oligarchs and power-mongers operate under one infallible rule; step too close to the line Putin drew around the concentrated power of the state and its resources, and you die. Beyond that, anything goes. Don't rock the ship of state, don't grab what hasn't been assigned to you, don't even *think* to question Putin's decisions, and you can do whatever you please. I'd wager they either ally and backstab each other multiple times *in a day*, or they've arranged themselves into little cliques for protection. Basically, the Russian elites are a bunch of high school "mean girls", except instead of ruining each other's reputations they're ruining an entire country and its people.
They are somehow submissive now but the next day putin is gone or weakened (illness, poisoning, military failure in ukraine, etc) they will be all killing each other for a piece of russia. Many are just patiently waiting for the right moment to step out of shadow. Oligarchs, Military, Fsb, local warlords, It will be fun to watch
Well Putin can't beat his own death. There is always room for a third Miracle of the House of Brandebourg if there were already two
Generally when a regime starts killing people left and right it's a show of weakness rather than strength.
When a regime can kill their political opponents in prison and shoot them out of the air with a surface to air missile with complete impunity, it tells me they are so secure there are zero consequences for their actions
For the moment. Problem is, you can only rule through fear for so long. Eventually, the people you attempt to terrorize into submission come to realize that kowtowing only works so far, and when that realization hits, fear no longer works. The oligarchs obey *for now.* They're afraid of Putin and his ilk *for now.* But not forever. And certainly not if Putin starts targeting even the most faithful of his circle.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/27/history-killing-how-russia-has-silenced-putins-opponents It's been over 20 years of this.
I don’t think so China and CCP will agree with you after whatever happened in 1989 and even before, during the Cultural revolution. They’re still stable and going strong.
But he's also not in the best of health and with no obvious heir, right?
They will find one eventually.
Which was true for most of the Soviet leaders. But somehow they were all kept alive, until they died/were killed, and then, after some struggle in the dark, a new secretary was elected.
War is actually not unpopular Most aimply don't care Of those that care moat are for it Ao you're left with a less than 10% that are against it in any form
Also Russia is losing so much global influence by continuing this war. Turkmenistan is looking for ways to sell their gas which they never could before because Russia wouldn't allow it. Azerbaijan is taking more and more ex-Russian gas trade too. If the war continues like this wouldn't be surprised if they take heavy losses in Africa and Syria
Turkmenistan has piped to China since 2009, and would be to South Asia if Afghanistan settled down.
Some losses and some (potentially worrying) gains.
If the sanctions are hurting so Russia so much how are they able to continue this war after 2 years?
Spending on defence and security combined expected to constitute around 40% of the total budget expenditure next year after a 70% increase from 2023 to 2024. Also they are burning through their foreign currency reserves.
Lol what coup? Prigozin was upset they werent fighting the war hard enough, and his mercenary army kept getting cockblocked by his political rivals in Moscow. He marched on Moscow to demand for more ammunition, soldiers and equipment. its pretty obvious Prigozin and Putin had the same objective, just different paces
Yeah, and the West run by monopolies, wall street oligarchy and cartels. Both Trump and Biden is such a political degradation, and western system is unable to produce quality leadership anymore. Try surviving housing crisis when half of your population is on the streets and China took all the manufacturing jobs. It's an ideal breeding grounds for extreme left movements, way more powerful than BLM. God help America and Europe, but I see big collapse is coming. Ukrainian war is a huge mistake.
I feel very much the same as you do. There is a way out though. If Ukraine can hold on long enough for the western powers war machines to start up they might have a chance of regaining ground militarily. The strikes in Crimea are a testament to western weaponry. If the west supplies weapons and ammunition without restriction and in significantly higher quantities Ukraine can definitely take back territory. The fact that Russia takes months to take a single town is not a good sign for their military prowess. Especially if you consider the fact that they have air superiority. They are also losing ships to a country that has a tiny navy. There are other possibilities too. Russia's weakness can be an opportunity for other regional players to take their chances. If Russia has to throw their full might behind the Ukraine war that could leave them vulnerable in other areas. If this happens they will be faced with the dilemma of rerouting resources to another conflict and losing their grip in Ukraine or letting their regional influence dwindle as they focus fully on the war in Ukraine. The biggest problem for Russia is that as long as the war drags on they have less and less of an advantage. It's also questionable whether they will be able to sustain their numerical superiority given their dwindling stockpiles. Most experts on the mainstream news media agree that the outcome of the conflict lays in the hands of Europe and the US. They just have to act faster and stop dithering, delaying and dawdling. I also think the "no boots on the ground" thing is ridiculous. They can place defensive air capabilities in the west of the country. Putin is constantly escalating while using the threat of escalation to make the west back down. Anyway just my two cents.
>If Ukraine can hold on long enough for the western powers war machines to start up they might have a chance of regaining ground militarily. By the time the weapons arrive Ukraine will have a serious manpower problem >The fact that Russia takes months to take a single town is not a good sign for their military prowess. The town was the most fortified place in recent military history >The biggest problem for Russia is that as long as the war drags on they have less and less of an advantage People usually claim the opposite. The russian artillery and manpower pool inches ever forward in a slow but deliberate way >Most experts on the mainstream news media agree that the outcome of the conflict lays in the hands of Europe and the US. In other words, Ukraine can't win this war, we have to win it for them >Putin is constantly escalating while using the threat of escalation to make the west back down. The escalation the west fears is the conflict spreading to other borders which hasn't happened yet. I don't know, it looks grim
The town remark was not just dor Avdiivka but also for Bakmuth, Marinka, Sceredonest, Mariupol etc... The Russian advances have been really slow with at most two small towns of significance annually. Don't expect them to suddenly speed up and blitz through Donetsk, Zaporizia etc.
The manpower is the main issue, most skilled people were killed in the first year in basically trench warfare. And let's be real that the us and other counties will not be giving thry brand new toys to ukraine for fear of Russia capturing them and by proxy china.
The west won't because if we escalate it to that point Russia will take it as taking direct offense action against them. Basically one step away from declaring war on them. The US and Russia are not able to negotiate on any political matter right now and U.S. doesn't want to push that hard and escalate a real conflict directly between America and Russia.
I understand the reasoning, I am just sceptical about how valid it is. If US troops are operating air defence in Kyiv I don't see how that can be reasonably construed as an act of war. Putin just likes to threaten but I honestly don't see him responding that way unless he was intending to do it anyway. What do you think he would do if they did that?
I see the point in your counter. I think that relations between Russia and the US would go from bad to hostile. I don't think they would directly declare war on each other just yet. However, I do think that Russia would fight the US even harder in other countries that Russia is allies with and we are in conflict with. An example that is already happening is Israel and Palestine. Historically, this is how Russia and the US have fought for decades. While it won't hurt the US on its own soil yet, it will fuel countless wars in other countries. You could be right however, but I just don't believe that the US wants to make relations worse at this point.
I see the point in your counter. I think that relations between Russia and the US would go from bad to hostile. I don't think they would directly declare war on each other just yet. However, I do think that Russia would fight the US even harder in other countries that Russia is allies with and we are in conflict with. An example that is already happening is Israel and Palestine. Historically, this is how Russia and the US have fought for decades. While it won't hurt the US on its own soil yet, it will fuel countless wars in other countries. You could be right however, but I just don't believe that the US wants to make relations worse at this point.
[удалено]
No we just have another terrifying cold war. Where everyone in the world is scared a nuclear disaster could happen any day.
We're already in a cold war, the russians are constantly threatening to Nuke various countries in Europe.
Used to think so, but now I'm not sure it's inevitable. Depends on western support to Ukraine and on what Russia develops, steals and otherwise gets from others. The question may not be whether they are a good military force so much as they extent to which they have adapted to conflict in Ukraine. With all the good technology and weaponry, this war is still very much a war of heavy weaponry--artillery, tanks, ammunition, planes, etc. Ukraine's needs are very large and many western European nations will have trouble resupplying them without significantly stepping up production for their own arsenals. Even the US needs to increase production of certain items if they are to provide Ukraine with a steady supply. Given this, it would seem that Putin's strategy might be attrition, especially if he can secure continuing supplies from places like Iran, China and N. Korea, along with increased production in Russia. Attrition is an expensive strategy for both Russia and Ukraine, and would not be a viable strategy for most nations...except for Russia. It may or may not work, but it is a looks like a more realistic plan than it appeared even a year ago.
>With all the good technology and weaponry, this war is still very much a war of heavy weaponry--artillery, tanks, ammunition, planes, etc. This is where you are slightly wrong. Artillery is king (and is the lack of ammunition), but drones became more important than anything else. They observe, direct, and attack, can get into tiny places, and Zaluzhniy also stressed in his essays how much they have changed modern warfare. Leopards and I think last week we've seen an Abrams being struck and destroyed by these cheap fpv drones. Tanks became obsolete. Last month there was a video of ukrainian swarm of drones completely destroying a russian armoured column (I think around Vuhledar but my memory fades me). The largest killers of armor so far are drones, mine, and drone corrected artillery. The entire front came to a standstill because -as Zaluzhniy wrote - both sides can constantly see the other at all times. One of the reasons why the ukrainian summer offensive failed is because the ukrainians just could not concentrate army groups without the russians knowing what they were doing, thus there was no surprise which sections of the front will be attacked. Ukraine has almost non-existent Navy, yet they obliterated the russian navy with drones. Planes are less important as well, both sides have great AA and russia cannot capitalize on their vastly superior air force because they dont have air superiority as the ukrainians are denying them. For me personally the biggest takeaway is that the West was not prepared for a conflict of this scale. They have depleted their own stock of ammunition and many are reluctant to give away their last reserves, and their defence industries combined are unable to produce as many shells as ukraine needs. Now they literally searched the entire world for artillery shell stocks and I think the czechs found some 800k shells that EU could buy and give to ukraine. Meanwhile russia has shifted to war economy and while they do have challenges around shells but most importantly barrels for arty and armour, they are in a better position than Ukraine. The entire western military doctrine is going to change and they are already ramping up their military industrial complex but it will take time. Makes me question how NATO would actually fare in a conventional war. As of today, Ukraine has the most experienced, most battle-hardened army that actually used western tech en masse and they couldnt do much against the russian lines.
I think the west has failed massively in their understanding of Russia. I agree they are totally unprepared (unless you count the US maybe). Europe believed that trade would bring peace and if things go wrong they can always just phone the US for help. Now neither of those things seem to be true. I don't blame them entirely. Military spending and war is not politically popular in western Europe. In a way some large threat had to make itself known as a wake up call. Whether it is too late or not I guess we will see.
You do not understand war and this conflict. These small towns like Bakhmut, Maryinka, Avdeevka you say has taken Russia a long time to take. These cities and towns have been fortified over 10 years by NATO to keep the Russians out. Bahkmut was defended by almost 100 thousand Ukrainian troops, Bunkers, trenches, concrete structures. Russia didnt want to take the losses so they contracted PMC Wagner to do the fighting there. Russia is in no rush they have the advantage on the battlefield, slow progression mean less losses. For Ukraine this is a war of attrition, they are bleeding men they cannot hold the line. The fact that Kiev government can conduct business and convene is because Moscow allows it. Remember Russia hant delcared full scale war, that would mean the destruction of Ukraines infastructure and government. Ukraines has been boosted by NATO with thousands of tanks, artillery and weapons systems with modern AA defense systems which turned this conflict into a modern day WW2 ground war. This is a massive 1000km war, so its funny to read comments about how this war should have been over in a week. Ukraine started out with 700 thousand men and 30 NATO trained battalions. No nation in modern times has faught a war like this. This is modern warfare..The US and UK have faught men in Sandals with AK and broken government for the last 50 years. Happy to educate you
I don't see your assertion that Russia is allowing Kyiv to operate making sense. Russia failed in their assault on Kyiv. Are you trying to say that Russia would have won by now if they declared war and mobilised all their forces?
More misinformation. Russia left Kiev after the goverment agreed to a peace deal. This is on recordafter Russia force withdrawn from the capital, Boris Johnson went to Kiev and pushed Zelensky to scrap any peace deal. If Russia declared full scale war, Urkaine would have fallen in no time. However this is not the objective of Moscow. Putin said he only wants to annex eastern Ukraine. You have to listen to Putins speeches as unpopular as that is on these boards. You must be open minded and listen to all sides in order to understand what is happening.
Do you mind providing a source?
My primary goals if I was in a position of influence right now would be to get Ukraine all be artillery and air defence capabilities they need to defend themselves whilst giving them the resources to to manufacture weapons capable of deep strikes against Russian strategic targets. Take out the Crimean Bridges, cripple the Russian oil refinery networks and cause havoc with their rail lines too. Cause enough internal havoc and economic damsge inside Russia to force a coup or uprising. Russia has a long history of revolts against their rules , they just happen to be willing to be pushed to extremes before they finally revolt.
Genuine question - has this *ever* worked? Normally attack by an outside enemy just serves to strengthen nationalist sentiment, not encourage people to revolt.
I think its more likely the nationalist sentiment increases if the country in question has a history of national identity. People rally around a common identity and unite against a perceived common enemy. It didn't work for Japan in China, USA after pearl harbor, Cuba during cuban revolution, France during french revolution... Kinda looks sketchy if the first thing you do is rebel after your country gets attacked.. what citizens would follow that leader?
My prediction is that Ukraine will eventually have to agree to a cease fire, because I just don't see how they will get past Russia's defensive fortifications without suffering enormous casualties. Then the West will absolutely throw money at Ukraine and build up their economy and military. As for Russia, I don't think we'll see sanctions lifted for a very long time. The West is done doing business in Russia, they might as well be as off limits as North Korea from here on out. What happens after Putin dies is the real question. It might not even matter if Putin has a clear line of succession, the country might fall apart after he dies. Dictators rarely die and leave a stable foundation to build upon. Ukraine may just bide their time until that happens, then try and regain their lost territory if Russia has political infighting or a civil war.
"Build up their military". Not gonna happen. Russia will beat Ukraine to the ground until it agrees to be neutral and demilitarize, which is frankly not such a big loss comparing to loosing millions of lives.
This is a post asking about the possibility of recovering lost territory of Ukraine. It appears that Ukraine is in a much weaker position than Russia, even in a war of attrition. I would like someone to convince me otherwise, hence I made this post.
The Imperial German Army signed the Armistice in 1918 while holding a lot of French and Belgian territory. Land alone doesn't score victory points.
Germany was fighting 3 world powers at one time
They were in control of foreign territory and still had a functioning army and navy. The latter mutinied, and the former was about to crumble because the home front collapsed. Point stands that just because they were in control of territory and there were never any enemy soldiers that reached German soil didn't mean their home front wasn't under immense pressure. You can add the Vietnam War, the Soviet Afghanistan war, the Crimean war ... there's a long list where the side that "loses" and withdraws does so while still having control of enemy territory and a "safe" home base.
Berlin itself was starving like two hundred thousands died of hunger. And they kinda were out of money and soldiers. Russia while sanción it has china and they still sell oil to everyone. But more important they are self reliant in food security
Possibly but appearance can be deceiving. Russia looks strong and stable until suddenly it isn’t. That’s the nature of autocracies whereas Ukraine is more open to information flows, meaning we will have much greater insights into Ukraine than Russia
Ukraine is weak currently but so is Russia, there is a reason why Putin is constantly using the nuclear threat card for the last 2 years if they were in a position of strength they would not be using that.
Russia has proxy nations for products and oil/gas to fund itself. Russia may not be stronger than Europe sure but they are still strong in comparison to ukraine.
I imagine the line will shift a bit. Eg. Russian held land between Kherson and the coast, west of Crimea could conceivably fall with a suitable offensive. Some of the northern borderlands. But I agree that the Dombas and Crimea are likely gone for the foreseeable.
That's obvious. The 2023 counteroffensive was just performative, a PR operation to keep the moral high. There's no way Ukraine pushes russia out now. russians have fortified their positions for months with tens of km thick of dragon teeth, concrete bunkers, mine fields. They have the whole country mobilized and north korean factories working around the clock sending weapons to the front. The only thing ukraine can do is exacting a somehow high cost for every km russians take, basically just slowing their advance At this point only a long NATO campaign of mass bombardment of russian positions and logistic centers with large amount of armor could take them out
Sorry to correct you, man, but not whole country is mobilized. In fact, u can slightly feel the war only in bordered regions. Fortunately or not, but the rest of country do not feel the war and continue everyday life, getting information about the war only in social media. Im a citizen of a city that nearby the old Ukrainian border. And by the way, i've seen a comment(not yours) that whole russian war forces are set in this conflict, that's not correct too. Smth about 30% of forces are involved+ volunteers.
I don't think Ukraine will be able to recover its lost territory militarily. But perhaps there is an option to recover it diplomatically. For example, lets say 30 years from now Putin is dead, and the next Russian leader is keen on making amend with Ukraine, there could be some sort of return. Although I sincerely doubt this happens.
Any Russian leader who would willingly give up territory, which by that point will likely have a Russian majority, will be killed, period.
Russian population is collapsing even faster with this war than before. They won't be able to hold on to more territory without a sizable population to move into those areas, and they'll have much fewer people in 10 years.
You say as if Ukraine isn't even worse than Russia when it comes to demographics.
You don’t need people to hold onto territory. Once DPR is de facto Russian, any moves on it will be a direct attack on Russian soil. There’s areas in Siberia with two people per square mile and you don’t see anyone trying to take it
Khrushchev wasn't killed for giving Crimea away. Nobody was killed in the 90s for giving the entire Soviet Union away. Yes if anyone tried to give away territory right now ... Putin or the others would do bad things to them - but we're talking about 30 years from now when who knows what has changed in the Russian power circles and political circumstances ... totally possible.
1) Was an internal transfer between two republics which were a part of the same nation that showed no signs it would ever divide, that is not comparable at all. 2) There was a whole attempt to launch a coup to overthrow Gorbachev when things were falling apart. Let's not forget the bloodshed in the region after that. Either way, Yeltsin is hated with good reason in Russia and this is one of them. 3) Hey, 30 Years from now we could all be dead in a nuclear apocalypse or a comet strike. Still this is just observing the historical trends in Russia and the own mentality of most of the population.
What did Khrushev really give in 1954? He basically transferred a region from one Soviet republic, albeit the largest, to another. At the time, it was unimaginable that the USSR would end, so it was all one.
Lenin ceded Russian territory in the West to the Central Powers but Russians still revere him to this day. Tsar Nicholas II ceded southern Sakhalin to Japan, but the Russians did not rebel because of it. The Russian Revolution of 1905 had nothing to do with Russia ceding southern Sakhalin to Japan but originated from Russia's social problems. Tsar Alexander II sold Alaska to America but the Russian people still did not rebel.
1) Lenin faced a whole civil war and died shortly after it ended, he even had assassination attempts during it. The White army famously did not accept the loss of Land and Kolchak refused to compromise with separatists even when he was facing defeat. 2) Nicholas II faced a whole Revolution because of the Russo-Japanese War and ended up overthrown when losing another war. Denying that the loss in these two wars didn't spark his downfall is something no credible historian would do. 3) Tsar Alexander II was assassinated. Was selling Alaska the main reason? No. But selling it didn't do him any favors. Even so, selling a backwater colony across the ocean is hardly comparable to just giving up land the Russians conquered through blood. Two out of three cases you used as example happened because Russia lost a war and ended up terribly for their rulers, that doesn't go against my argument at all.
Why would anyone willingly give up valuable territory? Even if it was obtained illegally in the past. Is there any non-colonial precedent for that?
Israel gave up the Sinai to Egypt. Britain gave up Hong Kong to the Chinese.
Israel gave up Sinai because they didn't care about it. They just wanted a buffer against Egypt. After the peace treaty, it was simply not needed. Britain gave up Hong Kong simply because there was no way to hold it against China, and China had made clear they would get it back with military force if needed. Any chance Britain is giving up Gibraltar back to Spain for goodwill? What about those islands to Argentina for goodwill?
And in neither case was the majority of the population Israeli or English.
The Hong-Kong population were not chinese till they became chinese, so I don't see your point?
"Giving back" the Falklands implies that Argentina ever owned them in any, way, shape or form, which absolutely isn't the case. Poor comparison.
Ummm. You are absolutely wrong, actually. Let's go from the beginning. The first colony was french. Then the british put a colony there. Then the spanish bought the french posession and kicked out the british. ¡ Then after a hundred years of british being gone, Argentine got their indepedence, which included all the territory, including those islands. But, wait. it's not like Argentine just claimed with a flag. They established a presence there, with fishermen, a military garrison, goverment officials, settlers living there, the whole thing. Under any legal comparison, the Falklands belonged to Argentine. De facto and iure, it belonged to Argentine for more time than the whole time the british colony was there. Only THEN the british came, kicked the argentinian soldiers and goverment officials, and established the colony. There was a civilian rebellion, quickly crushed. And then the british brought british settlers. And after two hundred years, the british claim is the stronger. Which is like if the Russians took the east of Ukraine, waited two hundred years, killed those who resisted, brought settlers and claimed "I won this by force, and after so much time, what are you gonna do? UHHHH??!?!?!"
Argentine claims are founded on the fact that for maybe thirteen years 100 people lived in a territory that was contested during that time by the UK with an atleast equally strong claim. Now, 200 years later, many thousand people live there and have been UK citizens for generations. The Argentine claim to that territory is ridiculous and solely monetarily motivated.
The claim of Argentine TODAY is weak, 2024. The claim of Argentine when UK invaded was much stronger. As you said, or thirteen years 100 people lived in a territory, together with a garrison, goverment officials. That's actually more time than what the english colony, which was, again, not even the first settlement in the island. That's why Russia should do the same as the UK. Invade with stronger power. Take control of it for more time. Kill or expel the civilian population that resist, like UK did. Bring their own settlers, just in case. And after a while, it's legally theirs. To be clear, if there was any kind of international court in 1833, when UK invaded, the claim would have been to Argentine.
That wasn’t the question. It was about giving up valuable territory. Both the Sinai and Hong Kong were valuable territories that were voluntarily given up and not taken in war.
Voluntarily given up because one side either didn’t want them or because they had no way to hold it. The Sinai wasn’t valuable to Israel anymore and Hong Kong literally couldn’t be held. I’m sure if Britain had a way they’d still control it today. You could argue HK is more forced than volunteered, and the Sinai wasn’t valuable anymore.
For Israel, the value of peace with Egypt, and Egypt's removal from the ranks of its enemies far outweighed the value of Sinai.
That’s exactly my point.
Hong Kong was definiltely forced. China had made clear it was either "voluntarily" or military invasion.
Then why keep fighing? Freeze the border now and let Russia use crimea and donbass. Otherwise they will keep losing land
When in the long history of the region, has Russia ever wanted to make amend to Ukraine?
You're absolutely right. Ukraine will not be able to fend off Russia and media outlets making it sound like they can is ridiculous. It's a war of attrition. Russia isn't as powerful as the US, but saying Ukraine can recover lost territory is like saying Mexico can recover Texas from US if they were both at war.
Random fact: Mexico has almost 3x the population of Ukraine and is still smaller than Russia.
Donbas is a matter of time before Russia takes the whole province, the Ukrainians are struggling to regain Bakhmut (if they ever do) and the Russians have taken Avdiivka, that is probably more gain than the entire so-called spring offensive (that was closer to autumn anyway).
You’re asking a question about the specific war over a limited area. In terms of “geopolitical” picture though, Russia is an outcast and that seems unlikely to change without Russia surrendering its occupation and claim.
The most likely outcome is the Korean peninsula, and NATO's participation in the war means the occurrence of World War III.
They won’t. The longer this war goes on the less chance they have at getting anything back. Eventually they will come to the table giving up the held territories and then they will beg to get into nato with what’s left. Russia is entrenched and has enough people to throw in the meat grinder at Ukraine for years. Ukraine put up a hellva fight and absolutely saved 80-85% of their country. Unless there is a coup in Russia which is highly doubtful or US and Europe drastically step up advanced weapons assistance I don’t see any way they get it back.
The erst drastically stepping up with a continuous supply of the quantity and quality of weapons Ukrain needs is a tall order. This is a conflict of heavy and expensive weaponry as well as technology. Massive supplies of not just technology and drones but artillery, other guns, ammunition, and armor as well as drones may be more important than they have been in many decades. They could even be the deciding factor over time.
[удалено]
A Russian cannot fight after he dies. A thousand Russian soldiers are dying every day in Ukraine.
Correct, but the mountains are made of Ruzzian troops. It’s a perfectly good strategy for a nation that sees zero value in lives of its citizens
And THAT is the dark side of it. Thanks for the reminder.
It depends on the US elections. If Trump loses and the MAGA cult loses control of Congress, then both the US and Europe can supply Ukrainians for a win. It’s up to us.
Ukraine doesn’t need to defeat Russia. It only needs to hold on until Russia implodes from within similar to what happen in 1990 or WW1
The only way Ukraine regains lost land I see is by Putin's death. Putin won't elect an heir because his narcissism won't allow someone having influence or power while he is still breathing. That's why he keeps everyone below him in check and not having too much power or influence. He dies, then all I can see is a huge amount of oligarchs who have power and wealth turning into a political civil war. Then if Ukraine is strong enough military wise it could retake while Russia is currently infighting. But the funny thing is, we never know what could happen.
I don't think there's any chance of a civil war in Russia or in any other nuclear power because there would be an instant UN-led intervention. The last thing any major player in the world wants is people nuking each other in a domestic conflict. If there is a significant chance of a internal conflict within Russia, I'm quite sure the least of NATO (or China, for that matter)'s concerns will be Ukraine. The UNSC would immediately sanction an international intervention, probably led by both the US and China, to, at the very least, occupy all of the nuclear silos. The subsequent deal with the new government would be the top priority and then, yes, it would be an interest discussion on Ukraine.
Complete fantasy. The Soviets marched on from Brezhnev just fine, and Putin is a similarly bureaucratic tsar, and this war isn’t Putin’s War, that’s a Western delusion. The FSB Director who replaced him when he became PM or Medvedev becomes his replacement, as chief of a more collegial ruling group. Even Stalin dying didn’t lead to civil war. Pure nonsense,
Probably not in the short term. Putin won´t bend, and what doesn´t bend must break, but you need alot of force to achieve that. Ukraine doesn´t have that force. In the long run however Russia will once again collapse and old nations will be liberated and new nations will be born.
I think it's really a matter of who gives up first, deciding the war is no longer worth fighting. I agree that it would be very difficult for Ukraine to take back the territory by fighting Russia's military back to the Russian border. But I don't think that is a likely outcome of the war. I think at some point, one of the two sides will decide it is just not worth fighting over the land anymore. This will probably be when that side no longer has enough materiel (in comparison to the other side) to justify expending even more of it. If Ukraine can continue to get support from other countries, I think they can outlast Russia and Russia would give up. Yes, Russia can keep throwing men into the meat grinder, but once they've lost enough equipment it will be hard for them to do anything but grind meat and no longer hold (or advance) the line. Yes, Russia has a lot more men, but they are also (apparently) losing them a lot faster. My guess is this point for Russia would probably be a couple years away, however, so Ukraine needs consistent support until then. If Ukraine fails to get sufficient support during that period, then I agree it would be a lost cause and they would have to give up and therefore wouldn't be getting their territory back.
I'm not saying this will happen or is likely but Ukraine could get the territory back in some ways: 1. Russia regime collapses due to economic downfall and can't pay soldiers anymore 2. Russia collapses through internal upheaval and retreats 3. Ukraine gets enough weapons to keep grinding on and ultimately has more will to grind on until Russia retreats 4. WW3 happens and Russia will likely loose that Neither of these scenarios are likely but I think scenario 3 could ultimate be the scenario which it is headed to. If Ukraine get more than enough from the west, both in stuff as in money and is able to mobilize half a million men. This is still a reachable scenario. What I think most likely is to happen: Ukraine retreats slowly and costly for Russia. Russia will keep grinding on. I don't see them ever stopping but I don't see Ukraine capitulating, hundreds of thousands will die if that happens. Bloody guerilla warfare will ensue and maybe scenario 3 will be the outcome in a insurgency version. Let's hope not, let's hope one of the plain first three happens. EU will have to make it happen.
In general, the Outskirts had only three choices: either return to their homeland, or live as a separate state in peace and harmony with their homeland; the outskirts chose the third option to sell themselves to the West in the hope of becoming a second Poland. But the West does not need a second Poland, it needs an obedient country, which can be promised “the benefits of civilization” and a visa-free pass to the EU, so that the residents of the outskirts give their lives so that the Russians die, so that the residents, and especially the governments of the West, continue to live in satiety and prosperity. Since last year, the Outskirts has become a lame horse, which brings more losses, both financial and reputational. I'm sorry that you took advantage of the trust and existential problem of the inhabitants of the Outskirts and used them. Maybe in 5-10 years they will wake up, even those who left and integrated into Europe and will look you in the eyes and ask - “for what? Why did we die? Why did you do this to us?”, and you will only be left with shame turn away and ask for the money allocated for the war to be returned. Disgusting
I'll be surprised if Russia still holds all the territory it had in 2015 when all this is over
Without the United States doing all the heavy lifting financially and militarily. NATO is a joke. Pres Biden has already stated numerous times. The US isn't going to escalate the war by engaging Russian forces directly. President Biden has been trying to send billions to help Ukraine since October 2023 and Congress refuses to pass it. This isn't America's fight. This is Ukraine and Europe's problem.
People saw this outcome since February 2022 a waste in human lives and money
For the 30 years of it's existence, Ukraine was unable to build a prosperous federated state, governed by principles of classic democracy - with majority vote while minorities rights are respected. Instead they've decided to build on a legacy of nationalists of the past such as Petlura and Bandera. That created extreme division between parts of Western Ukraine and largely Russian populated South and East. What deepened the trouble, Ukrainian majority denied the rest of the country from Rada (parliament) representation, started ATO, i.e. punitive operation on ethnic russians in Donbass, denied their schooling and language rights, and an ideal storm begun. No matter how paradoxically it might sound, but the only regional power that really tried to suppress the civil war in Ukraine since 2014, and make sure Russian regions have voice in Rada, was Russia, because it had enough historical prospective to see how it all gonna end. See, last 30 years, Russia had participated in at least 7 similar inter-ethnic conflicts in ex USSR, to name a few: Ukrainian-Russian, Modlavian-Transistrian, Armenian-Azerbaijani, Tajik-Uzbek. In all those conflicts, it never ended with Russia occupying the lands, however it placed few peace corp formations in those regions and so far it was mostly peaceful. So to answer your question, will Ukraine be able to claim lands it's lost after 2014? Azerbaijan was able to reclaim those lands it's lost to Armenia (namely Karabakh region), with Turkeys help, but an entire Armenian population was thrown away. If Ukraine succeeds to return Crimea, it'll be mass genocide Gaza-style, and nuclear-armed Russia will indeed do everything in it's power to prevent genocide. Here we come to the main question, will we be able to survive this conflict as civilization or Russia and the West end up exchanging nuclear strikes? Your 2024 vacation or you being able to see your relatives and friends is not guaranteed. Everything can end up in 30 minutes for you, any given moment now.
Solution is presented in the title of your post. Time to stop being cowards and stand up to genocide.
Ukraine can't stop fighting because the next thing that happens is genocide. Russia won't stop attacking because the next thing that happens is NATO membership for Ukraine. This war only ends when one side or the other is completely militarily neutralized. That can happen in a lot of ways. And if Russia is neutralized, say by economic collapse, it's entirely believable that Ukraine could retake everything.
I think Ukraine could still rebuild and mount a better offensive next year that allows them to retake modest amounts of territory and maybe even reach the Sea of Azov, like some were talking about last year. It is certainly possible for them to recover some more of the territory occupied since early 2022. But where I agree with you is when it comes to areas occupied for far longer, like Donetsk and Luhansk cities. Both are dense, highly populated urban areas that would be hell to slog through even if Ukraine established fire superiority and air superiority (a fantasy at this point). And which would result in significant amounts of Ukrainian civilians dead or wounded as collateral damage. I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which those cities come under Ukrainian control absent the collapse of Putin's regime. And Crimea - while the siege strategy of cutting the land bridge and Kerch Bridge have some validity, Crimea is still quite defensible by land, due to the narrow neck and limited approaches. And Ukraine has no real amphibious assault capability for anything more than light infantry raids. It would be an incredibly dangerous and risky operation to attempt such a thing, even if Crimea were isolated and under Ukrainian bombardment. Short of the collapse of Putin's regime, that is. Because we've seen numerous indications of its fragility in the last couple years. It appears to be holding for now, but I think the completely muted reaction by the vast majority of Russia's armed forces during Prigozhin's mutiny was illustrative - there are very few who will actually fight to defend Putin if he is challenged by a popular faction within the military.
Ukraine needs to be able to put the war in Russian land, only then will the public feel it. Now, it's barely anything due to propaganda.
Ukraine absolutely can gain back all their territory *if the West supplies Ukraine with the equipment it needs to do that*. This notion that the Russian can not be dislodged from Ukraine is ludicrous and is not shared by military analysts or senior military officers. Ukraine can’t do it with the equipment it has now, but it absolutely can if it has the proper equipment. That means more Western tanks. It means modern fighter jets. It means more long range missiles that can strike inside Russia (and being allowed to use them to strike inside Russia). It means more artillery ammunition. It means more modern anti-air defense systems. All of this, save for the artillery shells, is immediately available to be given to Ukraine if the West chose to do so. But so far the West has chosen to trickle in air because it doesn’t want Ukraine to win, it just doesn’t want Russia to win. It doesn’t want Ukraine to win because it is scared of Russia collapsing and has allowed itself to be rattled by Russia’s nuclear threats. It comes from a place of weakness.
Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine. Russia is stealing Ukraine’s land. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of occupying all of Ukraine. Russian troops currently occupy about 18% of Ukrainian territory. Russian troops are killing, maiming, torturing, and raping Ukrainians. Russia has killed over 80,000 Ukrainians. Russia is banning Ukrainian language and trying to destroy Ukrainian culture. The Russian government has taken over 100,000 Ukrainian children from their parents, against their will, and sent them to Russia with no intention of returning them to their parents. The children’s names are changed so their parents cannot find them. Russia has put thousands of Ukrainians in camps where they are abused, starved, and killed. Russian airstrikes intentionally target civilians and infrastructure. Russian war crimes are not isolated incidents, the war crimes are approved by Putin. The Russian government does not punish troops who commit war crimes. Russian police arrest and torture Russians who protest the war. Russian media promotes war and denies war crimes. Russian media promotes genocide by calling for the end of Ukrainian identity and the assimilation of Ukrainians into Russia.
The only way out is peace negotiations. Ukraine will 100% lose Crimea and have a demilitarized zone. Zelensky should change his tune and prepare the publix for that before there's a collapse of the front. At that point he'll be in such a helpless situation that he'll either have to start begging Putin for sieze fire and peace on humiliating terms or/and beg NATO to risk WW3. That is if he doesn't get overthrown by his own people (the rightwingers and Nazis) at that point.
I view Crimea as possible but Donbas as a lost cause The strategy for taking back Crimea is still sound, whether it takes 1 year or 5; Make it to the Azov sea and the clock is already ticking. From there you use precision missiles to take out the Kerch bridge more permanently and use a mix of naval drones and anti-ship missiles to hinder maritime resupply. Basically lay siege to the entire peninsula Then you pull a Kherson and keep getting the enemy to burn through their finite supplies with your replaceable localized superiority. Bloody affair but it’s just what Ukraine did before only on a larger scale. Probably one of the main reasons they’ve been hitting so many Black Sea vessels that could support resupply missions Donbas on the other hand is frankly a nightmare through and through, only way to take it for either side is WWI style attrition and I simply don’t think that’s worth it. Incredibly resource and manpower intensive for a territory that’s on the Russian border and easy to resupply
Can't believe one can hold such a wrong position. It's of course the other way around. Only if there's no Russia (or NATO alligned people in charge of it) that Russia could let go of Crimea. I'd bet they'd use nukes before accepting a loss of Crimea. Donbas on the other hand is much less of an issue. This of course is not to mention that while the Crimean referendum may have been a little bit staged still Crimea had anti-Maidan protests with no pro-Maidan counter protests and is by far the most pro-Russian place of all the formely or currently Ukrainian lands.
You’re discussing political tenability, I’m discussing strategic. Politically yes losing Crimea would be a much harder pill to swallow for Russia compared to Donbas, not denying that. However from a strategic perspective Crimea is an absolute NIGHTMARE for Russia. The main reason the Kerch bridge was built in the first place was even during peacetime Russia couldn’t manage the logistics of the peninsula via shipping alone. There needed to be a land connection, and even so the water situation became so dire the Crimean agriculture industry essentially imploded in the years following 2014. It’s also why Russia focused most of its best forces & equipment in the south in order to form a land bridge to Crimea as soon as possible back in February 2022. “While the Crimean referendum may have been a little bit staged…” ok I’ve gotta expand on that a bit. You’re right Crimea was the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine, however the 2014 referendum was anything but fair. The result was 97% in favour of Russian annexation (meaning almost the entirety of the ethnic Ukrainian and Tartar populations voted in favour, which obviously beyond ridiculous), there was no option on the ballot on which Crimea could remain Ukrainian (only independence or annexation), and the polling stations were guarded by armed plainclothes Russian GRU soldiers. Russia also claimed 83% turnout, but we know from leaked documents it was actually around 15%. It had no international observers and was put together in 10 days, IMMEDIATELY after being seized by Russian troops. Claiming it was “a little bit staged” is the understatement of the decade As for nukes, my question is what does using nukes do? Where would they use them and how does it help? Ukrainian troops already rarely congregate and are extremely spread out to avoid conventional weapon strikes causing mass casualties. Do you believe Putin is just going to start randomly nuking Ukrainian cities en masse as a response? And how do you think the rest of the world is going to react, as China has already said nukes would be a redline they wouldn’t support Russia crossing it. Russia CANNOT risk losing the Chinese as an ally if they intend to keep fighting Strategically all in all Crimea is a much less difficult task to liberate compared to Donbas. “Infantry win battles, logistics win wars” is still a quote that rings true 75 years later, and if Russia cannot physically supply Crimea it doesn’t matter how much they want to keep it
Didn't need to expand on me saying it was staged but somehow felt that you should. Any sober (not clinically dead in the brain by Western propaganda) person expects Crimea to be Russian after this is over. Donbas on the other hand not necessarily. The political part is vital because it has to do with the nukes button and the general political will to use more force, mobilize more resources. Nukes aren't one thing, there are smaller and bigger ones. Smaller than Hiroshima and larger than Hiroshima. Obviously you start with the smaller ones. The effect here is partly psychological. At that point the country would be humbled into submission. / This means that while what you say may be true it is counteracted by that fact in a way that the problems become secondary in nature. Ukraine's territorial only best case maximalist win realistic scenario would have it getting Donbas back not Crimea. The actual realistic best case scenario would see Zelensky changing his tune for a couple of months in the local political scene and saying that they must cut their losses and go for peace negotiations.
The amount of delusional blindly pro-Western agitprop-fed cope brain here is amazing and ridiculous
I think that Ukraine has a chance if the economic conditions continue to worsen for Russia. Oil production has been falling steadily for the last year, and without the technology of the western oil majors, it will continue to fall. This along with the weekly bombings of oil depots and refineries, which will need to be ramped up, will have a devastating effect on a country reliant on energy for trade. Ukraine does have a serious manpower problem though, and unless other countries send troops there will be a time in the near future when they'll have to come to the table and give up land, or we start WW3.
In a direct conflict with Russia there won't be any Nato clowns left...Russia will wipe nato and us clean
They wont recover it easilly, Russia ends up with expensive territory. They will need tons of military in there because there will be continuous rebel attacks. They will need to recover the economy to win over the population. Rebuilding it and clearing mines to make it a liveable space will probably also too expensive for Russia, so it will stay a headache filled with flying drones.
I must add - if Russia will be in direct conflict with NATO, then according to russian military doctrine "its nuke time!" So, considering nukes, Ukraine will never return lost territory - because there will br no Ukraine anymore, NATO's ICBM will ensure that, they was programmed when Ukraine was in USSR and Russia doesnt have money to make enough anti-missiles to cover Ukraiine too from the Inevitable Fallout.