Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Raoul]

should the ukraine surrender at this stage?
Its clear they are only going to get their country smashed and more people will die
Russia are not going to retreat that much is obvious

Why would they surrender when they are literally on the cusp of turning the tables on the Russians ? If anything, they will double down to fight harder because they think they can actually win this.

 

[McGrathsipan]

Why would they surrender when they are literally on the cusp of. turning the tables on the Russians ? If anything, they will double down to fight harder because they think they can actually win this.

Are they on the cusp of actually beating Russia?

 

[nimic]

Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

There are a few options still available — Armenia, Turkey etc. Although the flights are scarce & the prices are brutal — not to mention the amount of people that the countries like that can comfortably accept in since Russians have already fled to Armenia, Georgia etc. in vast numbers.

Going across a land border would be tougher logistically but who knows what the situation will look like when/if I’ll do it.

You are okay with leaving your homeland and everything else (I guess occupation/family/friends etc.) ? Sounds a bit extreme even though I appreciate the sentiment. Are you a proactive protestor to be this fearful of getting turned in or is it because living standard is drastically going to go down there?

 

[Raoul]

Are they on the cusp of actually beating Russia?

The Russians are bogged down and not making much progress, so you could say the conflict is a stalemate at the moment. Putin is quickly running out of resources to add to what he already has in Ukraine, at a time when the Ukrainian side are getting armed to the gills with highly sophisticated NATO weapons, so there may come a tipping point where the Ukrainians will begin to gain the upper hand. 90% of Ukrainians polled believe they will win this.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[spiriticon]

Why are people so keen for Ukraine to surrender?

I reckon if Ukraine surrenders than Europe should surrender too. We may as well give Putin what he really wants in the long term, so we can avoid any future wars.

Fascist rule isn't all that bad really, right? I'm sure we'll all get used to it after a few years. We'll all be chanting 'Down with the smelly USA' and we'll enjoy being bussed to a celebration in London Londonsburg when our Motherland nukes New York

 

[Rektsanwalt]

Why are people so keen for Ukraine to surrender?

I reckon if Ukraine surrenders than Europe should surrender too. We may as well give Putin what he really wants in the long term, so we can avoid any future wars.

Fascist rule isn't all that bad really, right? I'm sure we'll all get used to it after a few years. We'll all be chanting 'Down with the smelly USA' and we'll enjoy being bussed to a celebration in London Londonsburg when our Motherland nukes New York

One of the most infantile posts in this thread by the way. It's so hyperbolic and ignorant, I felt like this needed to be pointed out.

 

[spiriticon]

One of the most infantile posts in this thread by the way. It's so hyperbolic and ignorant, I felt like this needed to be pointed out.

Yes it is. But the demand of Ukraine to simply surrender is also equally dumb and riles me up to no end.

 

[africanspur]

You are okay with leaving your homeland and everything else (I guess occupation/family/friends etc.) ? Sounds a bit extreme even though I appreciate the sentiment. Are you a proactive protestor to be this fearful of getting turned in or is it because living standard is drastically going to go down there?

He's obviously not OK with it. The situation is terrible for all involved.

This isn't meant for you by the way but it reminds me of a lot of the talk about refugees/asylum seekers during the Syrian civil war for instance. For the most part, people really don't want to leave their homes, even if the economic opportunities may be better elsewhere. Its horrible in many ways. People don't do it on a whim. Its absolutely gut-wrenching to leave your home and family and friends and culture behind.

 

[africanspur]

Why are people so keen for Ukraine to surrender?

I reckon if Ukraine surrenders than Europe should surrender too. We may as well give Putin what he really wants in the long term, so we can avoid any future wars.

Fascist rule isn't all that bad really, right? I'm sure we'll all get used to it after a few years. We'll all be chanting 'Down with the smelly USA' and we'll enjoy being bussed to a celebration in London Londonsburg when our Motherland nukes New York

Nobody is 'keen' for Ukraine to surrender for fecks sake. If Russia had decided to launch an invasion of the USA, France, Japan or the UK (ie countries that have the capability to put up a sustained fight), nobody would be saying they should just surrender. If they had militaries equivalent to those countries, nobody would be saying it either.

Its not my place to tell Ukrainians whether they should 'surrender' or not but people are also being ridiculously hyperbolic with regards to the war sometimes and the flow of it, based partly on our own biases towards Ukraine and wanting to see them win and a general perception that Russia were going to win within a few days pre the war. Ukraine are not 'on the verge' of turning this around ffs; they have very little access to the sea, most of their southern coast is taken, Mariupol is essentially rubble and their capital is under an (ineffective) siege.

I imagine when people are talking about surrender, they're coming at it from the pov (rightly or wrongly) that Ukraine will ultimately lose anyway. In that case, is it better to 'lose' now and lose 10,000 people for instance or lose in 3 months and lose 100,000 people and have Mariupol and Kiev and Odessa bombed to rubble?

This presupposes that Ukraine will ultimately 'lose' of course, which may (hopefully not)vnot be the case.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Are they on the cusp of actually beating Russia?

Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.

I've been saying from day 1. Russia cant take all of Ukraine and Ukraine cant beat Russia. To me its obvious but all the war experts have been saying otherwise.
Russia will take the east and south and fk up the rest of Ukraine as much as possible to deter them trying to get it back. They are already digging in. There is one thing defending a territory and another attacking it. Basically Ukraine will be annexed. Russia will let its citizens suffer for a few decades and link with China, Iran etc in the meantime. Then in 20 years or maybe sooner they will start to make deals with the west to reduce sanctions. Maybe sooner. The more they fk up Ukraine the stronger their negotiation stance will be. i.e we will let you have kiev if you let us have the south and east and stop sanctions. thats what they want. The only question is how long the Ukrainians can resist. Mariupol is key then Odesa. thats my armchair assessment

 

[GlastonSpur]

Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.

What's your definition of "lose"?

In my view Kyiv will not be captured, the Ukrainian government will remain in place with Zelenskyy as president, the bulk of the Ukrainian armed forces will still be intact, and Ukraine will not disarm as demanded by Putin.

 

[nimic]

What's your definition of "lose"?

In my view Kyiv will not be captured, the Ukrainian government will remain in place with Zelenskyy as president, the bulk of the Ukrainian armed forces will still be intact, and Ukraine will not disarm as demanded by Putin.

They'll lose territory and/or have to make concessions regarding Nato, "denazification", other stuff. Most wars in history don't result in the loser just ceasing to exist, though of course that does happen quite a lot too. That's not going to happen here, unless something drastically changes (and it could). Kyiv could definitely be captured, but Lviv won't be.

 

[africanspur]

What's your definition of "lose"?

In my view Kyiv will not be captured, the Ukrainian government will remain in place with Zelenskyy as president, the bulk of the Ukrainian armed forces will still be intact, and Ukraine will not disarm as demanded by Putin.

Any scenario where a foreign army holds territory in your country and has soldiers occupying some of your cities and have demolished others is a loss in my eyes. That isn't normal. if the British army were still mostly intact, London was unharmed, Johnson was still president but Russia had occupied Scotland, that isn't a win (in fact, Johnson staying would make it a double whammy).

Of course, Ukraine may be able to drive the Russians back entirely, which would be great. Or this truncated Ukraine may rise up, join the EU and become much more prosperous.Also great in many ways.

But I think people have lost sight a little bit of what 'winning' is, because of perceptions at the beginning of the conflict about how easy it would be for the Russians.

 

[11101]

Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.

The longer Russia stays bogged down not moving forward, the more likely Ukraine will be able to drive them back and actually beat them. Maintaining momentum is a huge deal for an invasion force.

In the last 2 weeks Russia has barely moved an inch. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Ukraine will begin to launch successful counter attacks and force them into a retreat.

 

[harms]

You are okay with leaving your homeland and everything else (I guess occupation/family/friends etc.) ? Sounds a bit extreme even though I appreciate the sentiment. Are you a proactive protestor to be this fearful of getting turned in or is it because living standard is drastically going to go down there?

Not really okay but at this point I’m heavily leaning towards it. Ideally it’s not going to be permanent but then nothing’s more permanent than temporary things. Most of my friends have left already, it’s really not a great environment for anyone who, well, can think and can’t compromise with his consciousness. I’ve already did enough protesting to justify a prison sentence under the new law — and even if we discount personal safety it’s simply soul-crushing to live inside something like this Russia. The Nazi Germany comparisons have been done to death already but there’s no better example.

Not to mention that my area of expertise is very much contrarian to the core ideas that lie underneath Putin’s regime and every day they keep reminding us that they’re not going to tolerate that anymore — if you teach contemporary art, critical theory etc. properly you can’t really avoid critically assessing the reality around you.

So yeah. I haven’t decided on it 100% but at this point I fear that I don’t have much choice on the matter, so I’m finishing all the unfinished business that I have here and then reassess the situation one last time.

 

[nimic]

The longer Russia stays bogged down not moving forward, the more likely Ukraine will be able to drive them back and actually beat them. Maintaining momentum is a huge deal for an invasion force.

In the last 2 weeks Russia has barely moved an inch. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Ukraine will begin to launch successful counter attacks and force them into a retreat.

Ukraine's military is great at defending, but I just don't see them being able to seriously threaten with any large scale offensive.

 

[spiriticon]

Nobody is 'keen' for Ukraine to surrender for fecks sake. If Russia had decided to launch an invasion of the USA, France, Japan or the UK (ie countries that have the capability to put up a sustained fight), nobody would be saying they should just surrender. If they had militaries equivalent to those countries, nobody would be saying it either.

Its not my place to tell Ukrainians whether they should 'surrender' or not but people are also being ridiculously hyperbolic with regards to the war sometimes and the flow of it, based partly on our own biases towards Ukraine and wanting to see them win and a general perception that Russia were going to win within a few days pre the war. Ukraine are not 'on the verge' of turning this around ffs; they have very little access to the sea, most of their southern coast is taken, Mariupol is essentially rubble and their capital is under an (ineffective) siege.

I imagine when people are talking about surrender, they're coming at it from the pov (rightly or wrongly) that Ukraine will ultimately lose anyway. In that case, is it better to 'lose' now and lose 10,000 people for instance or lose in 3 months and lose 100,000 people and have Mariupol and Kiev and Odessa bombed to rubble?

This presupposes that Ukraine will ultimately 'lose' of course, which may (hopefully not)vnot be the case.

As long as Russia keeps aggressing, civilian lives will be lost regardless of whether NATO is there or not. NATO can't possibly protect every life, especially if Putin threatens nuclear war each time he fancies a go.

If Russia is allowed to annex land so easily every time through peaceful surrender, they will be encouraged to keep going West because it is just too simple for them.

There needs to be something to actually deter Putin, like a goddamn tough fight, because I think he is simply shrugging away the sanctions and creating a siege mentality in his country so they join his mental cause.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I've been saying from day 1. Russia cant take all of Ukraine and Ukraine cant beat Russia. To me its obvious but all the war experts have been saying otherwise.
Russia will take the east and south and fk up the rest of Ukraine as much as possible to deter them trying to get it back. They are already digging in. There is one thing defending a territory and another attacking it. Basically Ukraine will be annexed. Russia will let its citizens suffer for a few decades and link with China, Iran etc in the meantime. Then in 20 years or maybe sooner they will start to make deals with the west to reduce sanctions. Maybe sooner. The more they fk up Ukraine the stronger their negotiation stance will be. i.e we will let you have kiev if you let us have the south and east and stop sanctions. thats what they want. The only question is how long the Ukrainians can resist. Mariupol is key then Odesa. thats my armchair assessment

I very much doubt it. You can't claim to have annexed a country where the capital city and most of the country remains out of your hands, the bulk of the opposition forces remain intact, the opposition government remains in power, and weapons supporting them continue to flood into the country.

Russia may well occupy some of the East and South, but they would have to tie up large numbers of Russian troops permanently in order to keep it all. Those troops won't then be available to quell uprisings elsewhere, a lack made all the more significant by the personnel and equipment losses that Russia has already suffered and which will only increase day by day from here on.

In my view, this war - couple with the effect of sanctions - is going to leave Russia permanently weakened as a military force to a significant degree. We will look back and see pre-invasion Russia as being at the zenith of a military strength that will never be regained.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[sport2793]

They'll lose territory and/or have to make concessions regarding Nato, "denazification", other stuff. Most wars in history don't result in the loser just ceasing to exist, though of course that does happen quite a lot too. That's not going to happen here, unless something drastically changes (and it could). Kyiv could definitely be captured, but Lviv won't be.

No serious military analyst thinks Kyiv is going to be captured at this point, none. Russia would need a lengthy ceasefire and massive redeployment of troops to make it possible. I'm sorry but this post is out of date and not in keeping with realities on the ground.

 

[GlastonSpur]

As long as Russia keeps aggressing, civilian lives will be lost regardless of whether NATO is there or not. NATO can't possibly protect every life, especially if Putin threatens nuclear war each time he fancies a go.

If Russia is allowed to annex land so easily every time, they will be encouraged to keep going West because it is just too simple for them.

There needs to be something to actually deter him, like a goddamn tough fight, because I think he is simply shrugging away the sanctions and creating a siege mentality in his country so they join his mental cause.

How about the 60,000 Russian military personnel that will likely be out of action - dead, wounded, captured, surrendered or deserted - in another 3 weeks from now?

 

[UpWithRivers]

I very much doubt it. You can't claim to have annexed a country where the capital city and most of the country remains out of your hands, the bulk of the opposition forces remain intact, the opposition government remains in power, and weapons supporting them continue to flood into the country.

Russia may well occupy some of the East and South, but they would have to tie up large numbers of Russian troops permanently in order to keep it all. Those troops won't then be available to quell uprisings elsewhere, a lack made all the more significant by the personnel and equipment losses that Russia has already suffered and which will only increase day by day from here on.

In my view, this war - couple with the effect of sanctions - is going to leave Russia permanently weakened as a military force to a significant degree. We will look back and see pre-invasion Russia as being at the zenith of a military strength that will never be regained.

Thats why they will need to fk up Kiev and the rest of the country as much as possible. It will take years for them to rebuild. Hospitals, power - all key infrastructure. They will lose the WEst and the South - so no access to the sea. They are already be severely fkd. How are they going to launch an offensive to take back Russian held territory especially since their citizens are in those territories? They cant just bomb the sht out of it like the Russians did.

 

[spiriticon]

How about the 60,000 Russian military personnel that will likely be out of action - dead, wounded, captured, surrendered or deserted - in another 3 weeks from now?

Well, all the more reason that this talk of surrender is way too premature.

I am very sad for many of the Eastern Ukrainian cities who are properly fecked because of their geography, but every hole they make in the Russian army is a piece less for Kyiv and the West of Ukraine to deal with.

We can only hope that the sanctions make occupation too expensive for Russia after a few months/years. I can't imagine it will be cheap to maintain a military presence in a city with zero infrastructure.

 

[Raoul]

The longer Russia stays bogged down not moving forward, the more likely Ukraine will be able to drive them back and actually beat them. Maintaining momentum is a huge deal for an invasion force.

In the last 2 weeks Russia has barely moved an inch. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Ukraine will begin to launch successful counter attacks and force them into a retreat.

I think the next 2-3 weeks will be key. If Putin because he thinks the Ukrainians are turning the tide, he could start using more hypersonics, thermobarics etc. If that doesn't do the trick, a false flag chemical attack (or even an overt chemical attack would seem to be in play). If all else fails, that only leaves tactical nukes. But I would imagine NATO would get militarily involved if it ever got to the WMD stage (including a chemical attack).

 

[nimic]

No serious military analyst thinks Kyiv is going to be captured at this point, none. Russia would need a lengthy ceasefire and massive redeployment of troops to make it possible. I'm sorry but this post is out of date and not in keeping with realities on the ground.

Are you okay with me quoting you if Kyiv is captured?

 

[stefan92]

Not really okay but at this point I’m heavily leaning towards it. Ideally it’s not going to be permanent but then nothing’s more permanent than temporary things. Most of my friends have left already, it’s really not a great environment for anyone who, well, can think and can’t compromise with his consciousness. I’ve already did enough protesting to justify a prison sentence under the new law — and even if we discount personal safety it’s simply soul-crushing to live inside something like this Russia. The Nazi Germany comparisons have been done to death already but there’s no better example.

Not to mention that my area of expertise is very much contrarian to the core ideas that lie underneath Putin’s regime and every day they keep reminding us that they’re not going to tolerate that anymore — if you teach contemporary art, critical theory etc. properly you can’t really avoid critically assessing the reality around you.

So yeah. I haven’t decided on it 100% but at this point I fear that I don’t have much choice on the matter, so I’m finishing all the unfinished business that I have here and then reassess the situation one last time.

Sad to hear this, I wish you all the best! Hopefully you can get out safely to a place that welcomes you.

 

[GlastonSpur]

They'll lose territory and/or have to make concessions regarding Nato, "denazification", other stuff. Most wars in history don't result in the loser just ceasing to exist, though of course that does happen quite a lot too. That's not going to happen here, unless something drastically changes (and it could). Kyiv could definitely be captured, but Lviv won't be.

Losing territory does not equate to having lost the war. There will be no "denazification", joining NATO was never on the cards in the first place, Kyiv will be not captured, Ukraine will not renounce ambitions to join the EU, and most of the Ukrainian military will remain intact.

The most likely short-term outcome is a stalemate. Russian unable to defeat Ukraine and remove the government, and Ukraine unable to take back occupied land in the east and south. The Russian troops close to Kyiv might stay for a while, but all the time they will suffer attrition on a daily basis and eventually will withdraw (if they can).

 

[Pintu]

Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.

Russia won’t have the financial mussels to sustain this war long enough to achieve that normally inevitable victory. Ukraine only needs to resists for a few months and Russia will have to give up.

The only way Russia can win this war is if China starts bankrolling the war in order to disrupt the West. While it might make sense for China to see the West hurting, they would suffer just as much. And we go back to a new Cold War, China loses most of the financial benefits they get from trading with us. That will result in a quick decline in the living standards, Nobody knows how long the Chinese regime survives the uprisings that could result from that. Is the Kremlin’s regime really worth the risk for XI? I genuinely doubt it.

 

[11101]

Ukraine's military is great at defending, but I just don't see them being able to seriously threaten with any large scale offensive.

Do they need a large scale offensive? They only need to push Russia back a few kms from the cities, get them out of range of artillery, then it's all but over for Russia. Russia is not going to sit and hold a few fields on the border. They don't need to chase them all the way back to Moscow.

Plus Russia's military is not unlimited, both in manpower and financing. Intelligence updates suggest they're getting low on both.

 

[nimic]

Losing territory does not equate to having lost the war. There will be no "denazification", joining NATO was never on the cards in the first place, Kyiv will be not captured, Ukraine will not renounce ambitions to join the EU, and most of the Ukrainian military will remain intact.

The most likely short-term outcome is a stalemate. Russian unable to defeat Ukraine and remove the government, and Ukraine unable to take back occupied land in the east and south. The Russian troops close to Kyiv might stay for a while, but all the time they will suffer attrition on a daily basis and eventually will withdraw (if they can).

Losing territory is like the textbook definition of having lost the war. The Russians are obviously not going to accomplish all of their objectives, but that doesn't mean the Ukrainians win. A limited loss can still be counted as success, but it's still a loss if parts of Ukraine become not Ukraine.

 

[sport2793]

Are you okay with me quoting you if Kyiv is captured?

I mean feel free to quote the number of generals and analysts saying so, the Russians are digging trenches in that area for a reason.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Thats why they will need to fk up Kiev and the rest of the country as much as possible. It will take years for them to rebuild. Hospitals, power - all key infrastructure. They will lose the WEst and the South - so no access to the sea. They are already be severely fkd. How are they going to launch an offensive to take back Russian held territory especially since their citizens are in those territories? They cant just bomb the sht out of it like the Russians did.

They won't be able to for as long as large numbers of Russian troops remain there. But there's the rub - how long will Russia be able to keep large numbers of troops there without needing to shift them elsewhere to cope with - for example - a pro-Western coup in Byelorussia, or an uprising in any number of ex-Soviet places that no longer wish to be under Putin's thumb, or Japan getting aggressive about disputed islands in the far east, or the Syrian regime needing further help?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Losing territory is like the textbook definition of having lost the war. The Russians are obviously not going to accomplish all of their objectives, but that doesn't mean the Ukrainians win. A limited loss can still be counted as success, but it's still a loss if parts of Ukraine become not Ukraine.

I'm afraid it isn't. The USSR lost vast swathes of territory to the Nazi invasion during WWII, but guess who didn't lose the war.

 

[MTF]

To address what I think was discussed a bit on Friday or over the weekend, Michael Kofman (analyst specializing on the Russian military) thinks that Russia has committed maybe 30-40% of its total ground forces to this war, but those committed (and that have taken losses) include a lot of their best units. What they have not committed is on average worse than what has gone so far.

Podcast: https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/i...ussia-revising-its-war-aims-amidst-attrition/

 

[stefan92]

I'm afraid it isn't. The USSR last vast swathes of territory to the Nazi invasion during WWII, but guess who didn't lose the war.

To be fair you have to look at the situation when the war ends. Temporary loss of territory that can be reclaimed later is losing battles, but not the war.

Germany lost the war, lost territories and never got them back, and even to this day we did not completely clarify our border issues with the Netherlands (regarding parts if the North Sea).

 

[nimic]

I'm afraid it isn't. The USSR last vast swathes of territory to the Nazi invasion during WWII, but guess who didn't lose the war.

Yes... because they got it back, and more. If the war had ended with the Germans occupying Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus, the USSR would have lost the war.

 

[Rightnr]

I'm afraid it isn't. The USSR lost vast swathes of territory to the Nazi invasion during WWII, but guess who didn't lose the war.

You're definitely in the wrong here.

If Ukraine loses territory, this means they've lost the war. Now the Russians might not achieve all their objectives but that's not relevant in this case.

If Ukraine loses its sea access, that'll destroy their economy and they'll ironically be pushed even further into the embrace of the West because their economy will be crippled.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Yes... because they got it back, and more. If the war had ended with the Germans occupying Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus, the USSR would have lost the war.

I doubt that. The Normandy landings would still have occurred and Germany would still have been defeated from the West by Britain, America and allies, although it would have taken longer. Germany would have had to pull troops back from the East to try and defend the Western front, and then the USSR would have taken back all the lost territory.