• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

UA-RU | March 24th-26th | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Ukraine retakes Kherson and Russia does not react in any way in the war. It will be a sign that Putin has lost support even internally from politicians, military and oligarchs to continue the war.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
That's a fair point. Though the consequences to Russia would be devastating. Would it be worth it? They'd have to whip out the "existential threat" card. They already said the sanctions were an act of war, and NATO called their bluff. They'd have back up their threat this time.
Click to expand...
Well we all know the best course of action, rationally, is the one Russia seems to be taking, which is to force some sort of settlement. That would seem to indicate that Putin has recognized that his gamble has horribly backfired. Obviously though, Putin may not be a rational actor, and hes certainly miscalculated, so there is a chance he could again.
 
Splinters said:
Well we all know the best course of action, rationally, is the one Russia seems to be taking, which is to force some sort of settlement.
Click to expand...
No. The "best" course of action is for Russia to pull out of Ukraine completely. Anything less means Russia gets something, and that is a bad precedent.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
No. The "best" course of action is for Russia to pull out of Ukraine completely. Anything less means Russia gets something, and that is a bad precedent.
Click to expand...
Well, of course thats the the best course of action for Ukraine and the world, and any sane person. I was more meaning for Russia, after Putins massive error. I get what you mean, though, and I thought about that alot in the run up to the war.
 
there is a scenerio the russians could think they could induce in which drawing in nato for a while would make sense for them, they could wish to avoid losing a war to ukraine, and wish to escalate to a short 'squabble' with NATO which after a tense 'small' exchange they would sit at the negotiating table and make a deal with the supposedly incredibly scared westerners and end up with more favorable terms and more face than if they had made a sheepish deal with ukraine. I will say I see this being their plan as less likely now given the announcement of focusing on donbass, but I could figure this floating around a head in the kremlin at some time. would it actually go like that should they try it? probably not. that doesnt mean they wouldnt think it would.
 
dave II judgement day said:
there is a scenerio the russians could think they could induce in which drawing in nato for a while would make sense for them, they could wish to avoid losing a war to ukraine, and wish to escalate to a short 'squabble' with NATO which after a tense 'small' exchange they would sit at the negotiating table and make a deal with the supposedly incredibly scared westerners and end up with more favorable terms and more face than if they had made a sheepish deal with ukraine. I will say I see this being their plan as less likely now given the announcement of focusing on donbass, but I could figure this floating around a head in the kremlin at some time. would it actually go like that should they try it? probably not. that doesnt mean they wouldnt think it would.
Click to expand...
I don't rule out an escalation and an attack on NATO just because of that. You have to remember that for Putin what matters most is the image that will remain of him at the end of it all, than the result itself, even because of the difficulties he didn't imagine. Certainly he prefers a meeting with Biden, Xi, Macron, Johnson and a major power deal. The other possible ending to all of this is a meeting between him and Zelensky somewhere neutral, where he the "almighty" Czar will have to sit down and treat Zelensky as an equal and strike a deal that is far from what he wanted. This last scenario, which is the one desired by NATO and Ukraine, will only happen if he lost a lot of support from Russian politicians, military and oligarchs.

Among politicians he must not have lost so much support, since everyone is in office because of him. The oligarchs, most of them are rich because of him and fear being killed, so he can control. Perhaps where Putin is weakest in support is among the military, they are the ones who have lost thousands of soldiers and the generals are at risk of their lives, as due to low morale, he has to lead the operations closely. Perhaps the military can force Putin to accept his Pyrrhic victory.
 
Last edited:
SamHoarderBridges said:
Too bad we can't read it without a subscription
Click to expand...
Here is the first part of the article:
krzepice1976 said:
The European Union "sped up plans" and recommends member states to stock up on iodine tablets, protective suits and other medical supplies. Work is also underway on guidelines for countering the effects of possible attacks with biological or chemical weapons.
Click to expand...
 
For Putin, staying alone with Donbass without removing Zelensky is a defeat, as it would mean a victory for Ukraine. That is, Ukraine will feel encouraged not to accept the terms of neutrality and even the status of republics, if accepting Zelensky himself could be overthrown by Azov's radicals. Russia needs to conquer at least the coast of the Black Sea to Transnitria. Without this, Russia will only be postponing a Ukraine in the future armed by the West. Russia has had all possible and unimaginable sanctions, Donbass is very little. Another thing, the Russian weapons that are in the war are from the Soviet era, she didn't use her modern force thinking it would be easy, but it could be that these modern weapons are saved for a confrontation with NATO. My feelings about this trap Russia got into are not good at all.
 
chiari said:
For Putin, staying alone with Donbass without removing Zelensky is a defeat, as it would mean a victory for Ukraine. That is, Ukraine will feel encouraged not to accept the terms of neutrality and even the status of republics, if accepting Zelensky himself could be overthrown by Azov's radicals. Russia needs to conquer at least the coast of the Black Sea to Transnitria. Without this, Russia will only be postponing a Ukraine in the future armed by the West. Russia has had all possible and unimaginable sanctions, Donbass is very little. Another thing, the Russian weapons that are in the war are from the Soviet era, she didn't use her modern force thinking it would be easy, but it could be that these modern weapons are saved for a confrontation with NATO. My feelings about this trap Russia got into are not good at all.
Click to expand...
I don't know if the most modern Russian weapons would change anything. I can't see the Armata Tank doing any better, it could be the same as the old T-72's, being abandoned by terrified soldiers or a Javelin attack. The Su-57 could have increased air superiority, but if one is shot down by Ukraine's old Soviet systems, it would be a disaster.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
In the long run, conceding anything to Russia is a bad idea. It shows that invasion works. And gives them incentive to do it again. If they can weather the casualties and the sanctions and get (mostly) what they want, what incentive do they have to not do it again?
Click to expand...
This 1000x. Giving Russia anything just encourages them or someone else to do it again. It indeed shows that limited invasions work to force compliance to whatever you demand.
 
Urban guerrilla warfare is complicated, lol I wanted to see an army invade Brazil with its favelas, only Bope in Rio de Janeiro can do it. That's why the Russians destroyed Mariupol, the western media doesn't speak, but the Ukrainians themselves prevented civilians from leaving the city. I'm Brazilian, western lol I don't know if you Americans consider us like that, but I read the sources on both sides to try to find a middle ground.
 
chiari said:
Urban guerrilla warfare is complicated, lol I wanted to see an army invade Brazil with its favelas, only Bope in Rio de Janeiro can do it. That's why the Russians destroyed Mariupol, the western media doesn't speak, but the Ukrainians themselves prevented civilians from leaving the city. I'm Brazilian, western lol I don't know if you Americans consider us like that, but I read the sources on both sides to try to find a middle ground.
Click to expand...
I think there is faulty thinking in judging Western and Russian media as having the same level of credibility. While I agree that propaganda permeates both sides, Russia has lied over and over again, whereas atleast America has been right on the money from the start, barring Ukraines incredible resistance.
 
Soldier1985 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1507462455806644233

Ukrainian Defense Ministry Officials today have stated that they have begun to see Chemical/Biological Weapons Antidote Kits be issued to Russian Frontline Forces across Ukraine, Ukrainian and NATO Officials have Claimed they think Russian might use Chemical Weapons in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Aren’t NAAK kits generally given out to soldiers in the field, usually packed in a field med kit?
 
Last edited:
Splinters said:
I think there is faulty thinking in judging Western and Russian media as having the same level of credibility. While I agree that propaganda permeates both sides, Russia has lied over and over again, whereas atleast America has been right on the money from the start, barring Ukraines incredible resistance.
Click to expand...
I actually think the lack of respect for the Ukrainian resistance did more to motivate than anything. The propaganda war is arguably the most important battle these days. You are literally fighting for people’s sympathy and emotions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom