• 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.
Onoya said:
yeah, maybe, but, saying that they are the only one relying not on religion/race isn't true...
Click to expand...
I would suggest that religion and race are the biggest points of contention within American society today, in fact. He's a politician, he was trying to promote his country, wouldn't get hung up on the specifics of those types of speeches.
 
With Russias statement that they have finished their first phase of the operation and will now focus on the Donbas, I think it's possible we may be seeing Russia "fold" and try and get away with more minimal gains since they lack any good options for achieving an outcome favorable to them. A hypothesis put forward by Michael Kofman suggests this, but he does caution that this assumes Putin understands the military reality of the situation, which is very much up for debate. Perhaps it's a more realistic (optimistic) scenario then assuming Putin will resort to chemical or nuclear weapons to achieve some sort of results.

Its notable that Russia has accomplished numerous secondary objectives in this war, such as restoring water access to Crimea and creating a land corridor between Crimea and Russia. While it's questionable that Ukraine would ever cede territory to Russia, these are gains Russia could justify to itself as "victories".
 
Splinters said:
With Russias statement that they have finished their first phase of the operation and will now focus on the Donbas, I think it's possible we may be seeing Russia "fold" and try and get away with more minimal gains since they lack any good options for achieving an outcome favorable to them. A hypothesis put forward by Michael Kofman suggests this, but he does caution that this assumes Putin understands the military reality of the situation, which is very much up for debate. Perhaps it's a more realistic (optimistic) scenario then assuming Putin will resort to chemical or nuclear weapons to achieve some sort of results.

Its notable that Russia has accomplished numerous secondary objectives in this war, such as restoring water access to Crimea and creating a land corridor between Crimea and Russia. While it's questionable that Ukraine would ever cede territory to Russia, these are gains Russia could justify to itself as "victories".
Click to expand...

Even if they agree to end the war, how can you trust them to pull back, and then not reload and come back 5 to 10 years later? There would need to be something in the agreement that would act as a deterrent from them even trying to reinvade.
 
Splinters said:
Its notable that Russia has accomplished numerous secondary objectives in this war, such as restoring water access to Crimea and creating a land corridor between Crimea and Russia. While it's questionable that Ukraine would ever cede territory to Russia, these are gains Russia could justify to itself as "victories".
Click to expand...
If Putin accepts these minimal gains, they in no way pay for the damage to the Russian economy and the image of the Russian army. It will be a sign that he is too weak of support from politicians and oligarchs to go on with the war.
 
Soldier1985 said:
If Putin accepts these minimal gains, they in no way pay for the damage to the Russian economy and the image of the Russian army. It will be a sign that he is too weak of support from politicians and oligarchs to go on with the war.
Click to expand...
There is no way to repair the damage to the Russian economy unless they get sanction relief. What are they going to do, use all that Ukranian industry they're bombing into dirt? The damage to the image of the Russian army is already done, that ship has sailed. You also gotta remember that this war isnt popular. While there are certainly those in the Kremlin who would see Putin as weak for pulling back, many would also see it as what is best for Russia at this point. Getting minor gains and spinning them as a victory to a domestic audience atleast runs Putin some damage control.
 
DarkNoon said:
Another Discussion peice:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1507119602601496580
Yikes what if she is right?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. But Putin can't afford to lose Ukraine.

What's happening is a reorder of goals. Instead of capturing all of Ukraine, Russia is going to say that they really only wanted the East. That is why they are digging in. They're preparing to defend that section of Ukraine they got.

This way they can claim victory even when they didn't meet the goal of getting all of Ukraine.

So it depends on how much Ukraine is willing to give up. If nothing, then Russia has a problem.

My concern is if Ukraine tries to retake Crimea. Russia may or may not be willing to give up territory captured in this war. But they sure ain't going to give that up.

Personally, I'd love to see Ukraine take back Crimea. But I know what that would entail. So the rational side of me doesn't want them to even try.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I don't think so. But Putin can't afford to lose Ukraine.

What's happening is a reorder of goals. Instead of capturing all of Ukraine, Russia is going to say that they really only wanted the East. That is why they are digging in. They're preparing to defend that section of Ukraine they got.

This way they can claim victory even when they didn't meet the goal of getting all of Ukraine.

So it depends on how much Ukraine is willing to give up. If nothing, then Russia has a problem.

My concern is if Ukraine tries to retake Crimea. Russia may or may not be willing to give up territory captured in this war. But they sure ain't going to give that up.

Personally, I'd love to see Ukraine take back Crimea. But I know what that would entail. So the rational side of me doesn't want them to even try.
Click to expand...
Tbh it did occur to me how Ukraine might feel about trying to take back Crimea after being so successful against Russia. I don't feel like they have the capability to do that, however, as Russia would practically have the same advantage in Crimea as Ukraine does in Ukraine proper.
 
On another note, and moderator feel free to move this to a new thread if it warrants it. How does this war effect the situation with Taiwan? Of course, the two situations have many parallels, and many were predicting before the war that a weak western response would embolden China. Frankly, I think we have had a resounding response, doing everything we can short of fighting Russia directly, and that China should think twice about Taiwan. But, I'm open for discourse.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I don't think so. But Putin can't afford to lose Ukraine.

What's happening is a reorder of goals. Instead of capturing all of Ukraine, Russia is going to say that they really only wanted the East. That is why they are digging in. They're preparing to defend that section of Ukraine they got.

This way they can claim victory even when they didn't meet the goal of getting all of Ukraine.

So it depends on how much Ukraine is willing to give up. If nothing, then Russia has a problem.

My concern is if Ukraine tries to retake Crimea. Russia may or may not be willing to give up territory captured in this war. But they sure ain't going to give that up.

Personally, I'd love to see Ukraine take back Crimea. But I know what that would entail. So the rational side of me doesn't want them to even try.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right (thread, click on link):
https://twitter.com/x/status/1507400322829930500

I dunno. Emotionally, Ukraine would try their best to take back what they've lost. Rationally, they shouldn't.
It's up to them at the end of the day, but if this is the case - Russia only wanting the Eastern regions like they initially said about - then it gives both parties a bit of a stronger position at the negotiating table, theoretically.

From what I've read so far of the negotiation process, Russia's backed down a fair bit from...y'know
 
Train said:
then it gives both parties a bit of a stronger position at the negotiating table, theoretically.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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...
At the least they should only be left with what they had before this invasion.
 
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...
Fortunately, this "second phase" of the operation means that Russia is going from an unthinkable scenario to one that we thought was more rational before the war. It shows that maybe Putin isn't insane, and it also shows that totalitarian regimes can't get away with everything just because they have nukes (though they can still get away with alot). I'm an optimist so take my assumptions with a big grain of salt.
 
Araxen said:
Even if they agree to end the war, how can you trust them to pull back, and then not reload and come back 5 to 10 years later? There would need to be something in the agreement that would act as a deterrent from them even trying to reinvade.
Click to expand...
reload with what? Russias will never be in as good a military and economic position as it was before this war for decades, that much is obvious already. Also bold to assume Putin will live 5-10 more years, and would think this would be a good idea at that point
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom