Stated goals are not the same as goals. Obviously complete obliteration of the opposition would be lovely and all but what would they settle for? I'm sure Biden would love the Russian forces to be annihilated but it's not clear how that would happen is it? I'm sensing arguing with you on this is pointless though so I'll let you keep going.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Sorry folks, can we just go back to the sheer daftness that Ukraine would give up the war to prove a point?
Like, give up their sovereignty to the nation that has already committed mass murders and countless war crimes to prove a point. Roll over and get tortured. To prove a point.
Like, give up their sovereignty to the nation that has already committed mass murders and countless war crimes to prove a point. Roll over and get tortured. To prove a point.
Actually, sorry, one last point about this comment.
"Ukraine and Ukraine alone" get to decide what their goals are when it is "Ukraine and Ukraine alone" who are paying for the fight. When it's Western taxpayers paying for it, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask their leaders what the actual strategy and endgame is, especially when those same leaders have shifted the narrative from "the best outcome is for Ukraine to lose as quickly as possible" (Olaf Scholz back in February 2022) to a hysterical but suitably dissent-killing "the entirety of global freedom and democracy is at stake if we stop financing this war". If the stakes are as high as you claim, why do you have absolutely no coherent strategy for Ukrainian victory? That seems to me to be a reasonable question for Biden, Sunak, Macron and Scholz.
What's your solution? What should Ukraine do now?
Also, since this was your second post characterising my points this way and hence you're clearly committed to this stupidity, I'll put you on the spot: what "point" would Ukraine be making by surrendering under the circumstances I described?
That they're as thick as a guy on a football forum presumably.
The point that you described in your lengthy post, of course.
How about NOT surrendering to prove a stupid point?
We're reaching the stalemate phase. Or at least that's probably the more "positive" look at it, as it's more viable Ukraine to lose more territories than to win it back.
Now when it comes to peace talks, I'm not sure we are there yet. Either way if it comes to negotiations, Ukraine (or what's left of it) should become a NATO member to have some future guarantees at least. No way around it.
Now when it comes to peace talks, I'm not sure we are there yet. Either way if it comes to negotiations, Ukraine (or what's left of it) should become a NATO member to have some future guarantees at least. No way around it.
No this war is not an existential threat to any western nation besides Ukraine. But if Russia is allowed any sort of win in Ukraine they will move on to the next target like they always do.
Maybe Moldavia, Maybe some of the Baltic countries, or maybe one of the Nordic countries.
That's your opinion. I have a different one.
So all you have is more fatuous ad hominem. I'll leave you to it.
As a Russian taxpayer maybe you should be more concerned where your money is going instead of mine, I'm perfectly fine with paying for Ukraines defence.
big words don't actually make you sound clever.I should probably note that one down for an album title.
Both of them sounded like they really want to convince themselves of something instead of having an actual discussion. Troll farms work in a completely different way.
I doubt a stalemate would work for either side at this point. Even though Putin appears desperate to stop the fighting so he can somehow spin his calamitous attempt at taking over all of Ukraine as some sort of win domestically, he hasn't really taken over much in the way of sizable Ukrainian cities throughout all of this spare perhaps Mariupol. The rest is largely a swath of agrarian land in the south. The Ukrainians on the other hand couldn't spin a ceasefire as a win either, as they've taken the position that they want to reclaim all their stolen land. Therefore, its highly likely the fighting will continue until one side run out of resources.
I’d like to see you stick around for what it’s worth. At the same time it would be nice to see you acknowledge some of the stuff you got badly wrong in your bullish posts from May and June 2022 before you pretty much disappeared from the thread for about a year, during which Ukraine did regain a significant amount of territory. Especially since you clearly delight in pointing out others’ wayward predictions.
I also think some of the grief you’re getting here is due to the feeling that you’re basically in support of Russia’s war aims, whatever the reality of the situation. Perhaps some clarification from you on that point would help move things forward.
All the real politic talk doesn't excuse Russia creating terror in a country and causing people to lose their homes and country. I don't care if its the us or Russia whoever, its wrong.
The most likely near-term outcome I can see is a ceasefire and frozen conflict along the lines of those elsewhere in the post-Soviet region, with lines held not significantly different from where they currently stand and no mutual recognition or genuine peace process. In that event, both sides will be waiting to see how long-terms trends and shifts play into their goals, and wait for the right moment to strike, i.e. Azerbaijan last year. But we could be talking decades. Of course the obvious wildcard there is Trump, and I’d be unwilling to even speculate how things might go should he regain the Presidency.
Would explain a lot about his wonderful insights.I think he's the FSB mastermind behind the Sims cards plot
Nobody should really be reminded of these things, but good when someone takes the time.
Tbh I disagree on the part that Putin hasn’t taken much. Yes not many big cities but Donbas region along with Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Luhansk have a lot of natural resources like coal gas and wheat (although safe to say that won’t grow much in foreseeable future) and that resources can be pumped back to the war machine in the future.
Key point is also keeping the access to the Dnpro river and supply of fresh water to Crimea, which is key for keeping control over Sea of Azov.
On the other hand naturally Ukraine doesn’t want to concede Crimea let alone some of their most important regions in terms of natural resources.
The stalemate needs to be resolved at some point, one way or another, as unless the support for Ukraine stops (unlikely) or the regime changes in Russia (unlikely) not much will change on the map.
Russian forces will continue to fortificate the gained territories, making it harder to Ukraine to win it back, especially with less resources, compared to last year.
In the same time considering some of the recent outcomes on the front, Putin is unlikely to gain large part of the map, apart from occasional village here and there.
Running out of resources of course depends on Ukraine to continue to receive support and to me it’s given one way or another.
Putin is unlikely to run out either so it will probably drag another couple of years.
Ha, it's not quite the post I expected. But I'll just say I sympathize with the idea that Western leaders need to be clearer about their goals and expectations and quit the empty rhetoric.
"And make sure to put 3 sims in there, so everyone thinks they were using several phone numbers, real spy shit".I think he's the FSB mastermind behind the Sims cards plot
"Got it, three copies of Sims 3"
If this happened in an episode of Veep, everyone would say it's too absurd.
The boat has long since passed, but my view was right from basically day one of the war, NATO needed to give Russia an ultimatum - get out of Ukraine within 30 days or we are coming to remove you forcefully. And stick to it.
This was dismissed as warmongering, yet here we are 2 years later with a war still raging and western fatigue setting in. It’s shameful that Russia currently have the advantage, when you look at the resources the west COULD level here.
The answer to everything has always been “but nukes!” - which just proves that Putins nuclear rhetoric has worked absolutely marvellously in shaping western attitudes. Russia isn’t the only country with nukes, and deploying them in a first strike would be at minimum the end of Russia, possibly the end of the world. Would Putin really do that over Ukraine?
the NATO ultimatum would give Putin the opportunity to save face. Give him that “off ramp” that was talked about, and allow him to frame it as Western aggression and the responsible Russia doing what it can to avoid a world war. It’s an easy sell compared with some of the nonsense they come up with.
yet here we are, two years on with a grinding, frozen conflict - exactly the sort of thing that Russia loves. If Ukraine loses this war then it likely has major ramifications for NATO’s perceived strength. Putin will be emboldened and other authoritarians around the world will come to see that actually, the “world police” have been shown to be a bit toothless. This is the problem now - we have a situation where both Russia and the West simply cannot afford to lose, there is too much at stake.
This was dismissed as warmongering, yet here we are 2 years later with a war still raging and western fatigue setting in. It’s shameful that Russia currently have the advantage, when you look at the resources the west COULD level here.
The answer to everything has always been “but nukes!” - which just proves that Putins nuclear rhetoric has worked absolutely marvellously in shaping western attitudes. Russia isn’t the only country with nukes, and deploying them in a first strike would be at minimum the end of Russia, possibly the end of the world. Would Putin really do that over Ukraine?
the NATO ultimatum would give Putin the opportunity to save face. Give him that “off ramp” that was talked about, and allow him to frame it as Western aggression and the responsible Russia doing what it can to avoid a world war. It’s an easy sell compared with some of the nonsense they come up with.
yet here we are, two years on with a grinding, frozen conflict - exactly the sort of thing that Russia loves. If Ukraine loses this war then it likely has major ramifications for NATO’s perceived strength. Putin will be emboldened and other authoritarians around the world will come to see that actually, the “world police” have been shown to be a bit toothless. This is the problem now - we have a situation where both Russia and the West simply cannot afford to lose, there is too much at stake.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I agree with you 100%. I was saying the same thing.
The main problem is that most leaders in EE, and Biden in the US, are basically cowards or classic politicians with no spine, they only care about their own re-election. Actually, that's the main reason we have this war, if Putin believed that there is even a small possibility that the West will go to war, he'd never start. He tested the waters in 2014, Obama and Merkel did nothing, so he did not expect anything else from Biden and Scholz. It is very disappointing.
Now Putin is waiting for Trump.
Unfortunately that won’t work in Ukraine favor. Putin, or whoever it is can regroup and strike again, especially if Ukraine isn’t part of NATO during the cease fire.
It’s a bit of shit situation as without immediate support Ukraine can’t win much of its ground back and Putin already shifted big part of the economy in war supplies.
On the other hand especially if Trump wins USA can back off and Russia will out grind them in long war.
In essence if you are in Ukraine position you can’t really negotiate with terrorists(Putin), yet they can’t be sure come November how much support they will have from its allies ..
He seems upset about South Africa's stance on Gaza in contrast to thier non-stance on Ukraine. That's a fair point. The seemingly random (or not) rant about "77 virgins in paradise" leads me to think he's probably a racist cnut though.
Racist cnut or not, I do agree western nations (US specifically) should send more arms to Ukraine. They could send all the shit they are giving to the Israelis to the Ukranians. They'd make better use of it fending off Russia than the Israelis do pounding Gaza to dust.
Agreed 100% but that won't happen. I've successfully taken my in-laws out the Ukraine because I don't believe western leaders will do what's needed. Ukraine will be drip fed until the eastern front crumbles and the Israelis will receive more arms to finish the ethnic cleansing of palestinian people.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Wow. First time Ukraine has given official numbers on their losses?
Also seems rather low. Last August NYT reported that the US estimated up to 70K killed.
WSJ's Yaroslav Trofimov says it doesn't include thousands who are missing but also likely dead.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't think a NATO ultimatum would be perceived in Russia as an off ramp. Rather, it would be perceived and acted upon as an imminent threat from NATO to Russian territory.
They are confirmed deaths so don't include soldiers that are MIA and presumed dead.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That just can't be true. During the whole Soviet Afghan war it's thought that about 25K Soviet troops were killed. The US lost about 70K troops in the nearly ten years of the Vietnam conflict. 180k in two years would be insane and is simply unbelievable.
Last edited: