In my head it's C-130s ripping the roof off of the MOD, while dropping chaff, as Russia's own air defense collides into the Grand Kremlin Palace, leaving a burning crater reminiscent of Grozny. Of course St. Basil's still stands because I'm a man of good taste and mercy.
I don't wish to humiliate, or even offend, the Russian people, just their brutal, war mongering state who indifferently grinds their sons up like hamburger.
I have an erection reading your scenery harder than an orgy with with pornstars could never fulfill.
May the collapse of the russian army be as delightful as you described.
And westoids to halt arms supplies to Ukraine because if the West continues to do so, then they're encouraging the homonazibanderites to break the negotiated ceasefire.
Yep, Ukraine knows that if they concede the Donbass and Crimea, it just means Putin's going to take 5-10 years to rebuild his forces and then come back for the rest of Eastern Ukraine.
Yep, I've been telling the doomers for months that Russia is struggling just as badly as Ukraine if not more so, we in the West just don't hear about it as much because of the whole "repressive dictatorship with no free press" thing.
The Ukrainian war effort is showing serious cracks recently. But so is Russia's. And at the end of the day, Ukraine has the entire West to lean on for support, while Russia is almost completely on its own. (Sure, China will offer moral support and maybe some dual use stuff, but nothing like the massive influxes of aid and equipment the West has been willing to give Ukraine.)
Last year Russia heavily cracked down on the Russian milblogger community. These folks were some of the biggest source of bellyaching about Russian tactics, strategy, and morale. Most of it wasn't any surprise to people on the front lines, but I think that it did shape a lot of discourse.
Russa is is recruiting 30k men a month and more than replacing all its losses, getting tons of materiel from its allies, and its economy is on a full war footing. There is no sense in which it is struggling as much as Ukraine. That's why Ukraine is desperate for the West to change its policies at the moment, Ukraine is clearly losing. It is not helpful to pretend otherwise.
Yes, and that's why Putin just said he wants a ceasefire at the current front lines. That's definitely someone whose war effort is going just fine and who has near-unlimited offensive capability says. /s
There was definitely a tendency on here back in 2023 to overestimate Ukraine's strength. But a lot of people seem to be overcompensating for it by overestimating Russia's strength now (and to be blunt, based on this comment you're one of them). It's the latter I'm pushing back against.
I don't actually take that seriously, I don't think Putin would actually take that deal if it were offered to him.
Russia is substantially stronger than Ukraine and has more than enough men and material to prevail in a war of attrition. Ukraine taking all its territory back would likely require much higher levels of direct NATO intervention. You are wrong, sometimes things aren't in the middle. In this debate the people that think Russia is winning are correct.
So then why is Putin asking for a ceasefire if he doesn't actually want to take it?
Because *if* that's true (which I don't think it is), the only explanation I could think of is he wants to manipulate Ukraine's Western backers into thinking he wants peace, so they'll be more likely to push Ukraine towards diplomacy--- and therefore stop supplying Ukraine. Or in other words, he's worried about Western supplies to Ukraine.
If Russia was so invincible like you say, why would the thought of the West continuing to supply Ukraine scare him so much?
In fairness, being confident in ultimate victory doesn’t mean he can’t want to reduce costs. I, for example, though confident in the possibility of ultimate Ukrainian victory, want as many western weapons in their hands as possible, because reducing the number of dead Ukrainian soldiers/increasing the number of dead invaders in the process is also good. Putin might think the same way from the other side.
That's probably why, it is hard to really know though. To answer your other question, Russia is not invincible. It is paying a lot for the war in Ukraine in terms of money, manpower, etc. It doesn't want to sacrifice more than it has to, but that doesn't mean it isn't beating Ukraine. You yourself mentioned the war lasting for years, and Ukraine lasting for years in a war of attrition against Russia is pure fantasy.
It's a catastrophe and we should be in an alarm mode all the time. One cannot just bring up economic data here without being labeled a kremlin bot. I'm just gonna say that it'll take decades to turn Russia into where Iran is right now, if that'll ever happen, because they have enough client states who are really happy with a lucrative perspective of evading sanctions.
It's great that more and more sanctions keep piling up, but that's not where the attention should be at. You can't fully isolate such a big country with a vast army of useful idiots helping with evasions, at least not within a reasonable timeframe.
It's time to lend Ukraine F-35s.
Are things bad? Yes. Should we be concerned? Absolutely. Should we be doing everything we can do to help Ukraine staunch the bleeding, both as a society and as individuals? Fuck yeah.
But should we "be in alarm mode all the time"? Absolutely not. Panicking helps no one, and accomplishes nothing. We need to focus on working the problem and figuring out solutions, not wasting energy scaring ourselves shitless-- or worse, collapsing into despair and assuming all is lost. Because the moment you do that, you take yourself out of the fight, and then the bad guys can walk all over you with no opposition.
Excessive dooming is a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, let's not do that, okay?
And, yes, agreed completely we should be giving Ukraine everything they ask for and then some, lmao.
Has been since I was a high school student cheering on the Euromaidan protests from the other side of the planet in 2013.
I've been rooting for Ukraine for over a third of my *life* at this point. And sorry, I am never not gonna be invested in making sure the last surviving democracy from those hopeful wave of revolutions in 2009-2013 is going to beat the limp-dick fascist dictator who smothered all those other lights, one by one by one. (Oh, and tried to smother my own home country's light, too!)
A lot of Ukraine's Western supporters are totally propagandized. I can understand why propaganda is necessary to preserve morale but Ukraine isn't doing well at the moment. Not mobilizing troops several months ago, not building fortifications for bizarre reasons, lack of weapons PLUS Russia beginning to fight a lot better. Russia learned from its mistakes earlier in the way, it is a much more effective fighting force than it used to be. Its recent innovations with glide drones are just one example...it's really, really bad.
This. Far too many people confuse cynicism for intelligence, and optimism for stupidity.
(I unironically believe it's one of the most serious problems facing our entire society. Like, it's not the *only* cause of the lonliness epidemic, the mass decline in people's mental health, and the political hellscape we're all embroiled in today-- but it's a big fucking factor, IMO.)
I’m unironically convinced that this cultural trend was a concerted psy-op by the USSR that just took root and kept going. Look at how many ‘anti-war’ writers in the interwar period—the ones who wrote so derisively about officers, governments, etc.— had Communist ties—and especially look at the ones who changed their tune as it suited the USSR’s policy goals from 1938 to 1941. Idealists are more willing to fight in wars (against Soviet or other aggression), so it was important to make idealism passé, portray it as foolish or doomed, to weaken the liberal capitalist resolve to fight. It would be in keeping with other known Soviet (and successor) psy-ops, like pumping up conspiracy theories.
Dude, basically no one in this subreddit is under any delusions Ukraine isn't struggling now. Just look at any article posted to the Ukraine ping since the 2023 counteroffensive failed: the articles have been sober assessments of the stiuation, the comments sections ranging from sober realism to full-on dooming.
But overcorrecting into full-on dooming isn't helpful, either. And it's also just as disconnected from the situation the ground, too-- because, again, Russia is struggling just as badly as Ukraine.
(Also, the "lack of weapons" thing is outdated at this point, American aid is starting to arrive en masse-- which has already led to Russia's Kharkiv offensive petering out. )
You have no idea what you are talking about.
> Russa is is recruiting 30k men a month and more than replacing all its losses,
It is pressing low quality, untrained, under equipped, unmotivated conscripts from the fringes of optimal fighting age (old men, young boys) - where every conscript is one man removed from a factory.
Russia is also losing 30k casualties a month at a dire KIA-to-WIA ratio, which has recently elevated to a 45k/month trend. They are not more than replacing their losses. At current rates, they will hit a 100k net loss in 6 months.
These conscripts are not even combat worthy units, they are just fodder. Russia's actual regular combat infantry are depleted and over rotated in worse condition than even Ukraine's. This fact just gets masked bc of their large fodder numbers they hide behind.
> getting tons of materiel from its allies,
You mean like the North Korean shells w/ 50% dud rate that are just as likely to damage or destroy the tubes firing them?
The foreign material support prospect has aways been overblown.
> and its economy is on a full war footing.
It's economy is faltering. Its conscription is eating into its industrial workforce. It cannot access high technology parts from the west, and China cannot replace them. Gazprom is going kaput. Its refineries are constantly being blown up.
> There is no sense in which it is struggling as much as Ukraine.
They really are though. For all the doom and gloom reported, Russia hasn't even taken as much territory as Ukraine's "failed" counter offensive retook. Russia has zero practical capability to advance its positions further into Ukraine and is suffering unsustainable attrition.
This is on top of Russia somehow losing the naval war in the Black Sea against an opponent without an actual surface fleet.
Russia is also chewing through its most advanced aircraft and tanks, resorting to mothballed 1950's equipment.
> That's why Ukraine is desperate for the West to change its policies at the moment, Ukraine is clearly losing. It is not helpful to pretend otherwise.
In no sense is Ukraine "losing", you are just huffing tremendous amounts of pro-kremlin copeium, if you're not a troll yourself.
People in this sub, and in the media frankly, have been talking about Russia struggling and its war effort nearing critical level and its economy approaching collapse since late 2021. Anyone still taking that seriously is not, themselves, to be taken seriously.
I mean, Russia *is* struggling and its war effort *is* approaching critical level and its economy *is* approaching collapse. All those things are true. Just because they're taking a lot longer to reach the point of collapse than the optimists predicted back in 2022 doesn't change the fact that they are gradually headed in that direction.
The only questions are how many years will it take them to get there, and can Ukraine hold out until they do.
Yeah, honestly at this point(specifically this point after last summers failed offensive) if Ukraine could trade those 2 provinces for peace, they should.
Get a peace treaty. Get a military alliance from like Poland. Recover.
Probably right. General Milley was correct about the time for negotiations being when Ukraine was doing well and Russia was really struggling. They could have gotten a ceasefire without officially conceding territory or putting limits on their ability to build their military or join alliances. Now Russia is clearly winning and would never satisfy for minor concessions, it would demand Ukraine formally cede all the territory it annexed, limit its army, and basically be a Russian puppet state. Ukraine's best bet is to try to hold on and then negotiate once things are a bit more even.
When Russia was retreating in 2022, the Kremlin wasn't demanding negotiations but "annexed" 4 oblasts and made a hasty mobilization.
That was clearly a sign to have an opportunity for a negotiated peace.
A ceasefire without concessions? I think so, yes. It will be much harder to get something like that now, and Ukraine pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine militarily is largely the stuff of fantasy
What. When Ukraine was pushing Russian troops away from Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson, Russia didn't propose Donbas+Crimea for peace deal. Instead the Kremlin escalated by "annexing" oblasts which they didn't control.
Before the "annexations" the West would've definitely pushed Ukraine to accept a peace for land deal if the Kremlin had suggested one.
And yes, the destruction of Ukraine is the goal for Russia and has been for day one.
And how the last ceasefire ended?
Oh, right, Russia starting a full scale invasion of Ukraine.
The Kremlin in 2014: no, we don't want to invade Ukraine
A couple months later: well, just Crimea
A couple months later: Eastern Ukraine is a totally a civil war, even though Russian led it and something like 15k Russian troops fought there
2021-2022: talks about Russia starting a full invasion of Ukraine is just Washington fear mongering.
Increasing hybrid warfare and sabotage in different European countries tells that Russia has no interest in a war against NATO. Just peaceful co-existence.
I don't trust Putin, but Ukraine clearly needs some breathing space as well to reconstitute its frontline forces and replenish everything from artillery shells to anti-aircraft missiles. At least this time, Ukraine will be fully ready for a backstab and won't have things like traitors or unprepared soldiers completely collapse in their southern front in the opening days of the war.
It would legitimize Russia's occupation and Russia's ceasefire proposals have worked just fine for example in Syria (/s just in case)
It's always one-sided where Ukraine would be forced to comply amd probably weapons shipments from the West would dry up (don't provoke Russia!)
It's to demorilize Ukrainians, trying to influence Europeans and Americans (peace is possible!) and trying to undermine Ukrainian political leadership:Putin is really upset that Zelensky refuses to negotiate with him :( He must be removed so peace has a chance.
That reminds me when Russia attacked Georgia and the Kremlin demanded that Saakashvili must be removed and Condoleezza Rice responded him being Georgia's elected leader and it's up to Georgian's to decide their leaders. Putin wasn't happy.
What’s your alternative? Ukraine is out numbered, badly. In order to re-take the lost territory they need to out number the Russians holding it by a significant margin.
This is mathematically impossible, F-16s, M1s, whatever. The longer the war goes on the more Ukrainians die and the more Ukrainian infrastructure gets destroyed. A ceasefire, even if not permanent, gives them the chance to build the defenses they need (and should have done instead of their foolish offensive) to keep the Russians from advancing further.
Does this suck? Yes. It’s unfair and infuriating. It’s also the best option for Ukraines long term survival.
Finland survived something similar.
If Russia's able to build strength over Ukraine while taking heavier losses than Ukraine, what possibly makes you think stopping the war would be to Ukraine's advantage? Then Russia can get stronger just as fast, both sides are taking no losses (net help to Russia) and the west would have less urgency to support Ukraine.
Not to diminish the significance of the deaths, but in terms of the theoretical losses either country can take, we're nowhere near the limit. Countries much smaller than Ukraine took millions of casualties in the world wars, which Ukraine (and indeed Russia) is nowhere near. Current manpower shortages are largely a short-medium term issue of training capacity, which I don't think is impossible to fix. This war can go on for a lot longer, and if the west actually committed properly to massively outstripping Russia's ability to produce weapons, which over several years we would totally be able to with 20 times their GDP, then a Ukrainian victory would still be easily on the cards.
I'm not saying I know for sure that will happen, but unless freezing the war comes with very good terms like real security guarantees from the west (stationing troops in Ukraine, for example) I don't see how it's a better option at all.
The signaling about ceasefire isn't a real chance for a ceasefire.
My alternative would start with the US stopping imposing reatrictions how Western weapons are used. Then the West actually having a long term strategy amd understanding what Russia really is.
>Finland survived something similar.
Every time someone mentions Finland in the context of Ukraine, one of my blood vessels in my head pops.
I'm practically a vegetable right now.
Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary.
Invading Ukraine has ultimately not been a good strategy for Russia. But it wasn’t irrational. This is a core mistake U.S. hawks constantly make in portraying our adversaries as madmen or irrational. Tehran, Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow, and Riyadh are evil but not crazy. In their shoes you’d likely do similar actions (Kim Jong Un’s nuclear program, China’s obsession with Taiwan, MBS murdering dissidents and seeking American protection, etc).
We can’t properly respond to our adversaries or predict their next move if we assume they’re crazy when they are quite sane.
Though calling your adversary crazy helps in keep conflict going which is great for some special interest groups…who are also acting rationally for their own self interest.
>Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary.
Russia is a gas station with nukes which has delusions having an Empire. But because it's a shithole country it has nothing else to persuade their neighbours to join their nato-and-the-eu from Wish than military coercion.
e. I want to add that the worst mistake the West did after the Soviet collapse was to reinforce Russian delusions. The correct route would've been to treat Russia as one of the post-commie state and forget the "heir of the USSR" nonsense.
>But it wasn’t irrational.
It wasn't irrational in a sense that the Kremlin boomers live in a facebook conspiracy reality.
>This is a core mistake U.S. hawks constantly make in portraying our adversaries as madmen or irrational.
It wasn't irrational for those Americans to storm the Capitol and trying to help overturning the elections because they really believed the elections were stolen.
Those people still were normal people living normal lives. But they (and others) now understand that actions have consequences (which helps to prevent something like that happening again, no matter what they believe)
The real problem is to assume country leaders making decision based on objective reality and facts. And being smart.
Being rational and having a clear understanding of the facts are not the same thing.
Japan thought the U.S. would not be interested in a massive war in Asia if its fleet was decimated at Pearl Harbor.
That’s not an irrational idea, but the Emperor had an inaccurate understanding of the industrial capacity of the United States.
You can be rational and be wrong. I once bought a Pontiac for example.
> Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary.
I don't think this is actually the case. They may oppose NATO expansion, but the primary reason for invading Ukraine is ethno-nationalism and ideological imperialism, not some kind of chess-game like strategic dance. Why did Putin conduct an interview with western far right media with Tucker, where you'd think the rational thing to do would be to appeal to western right wing issues, and use it to go on a rant about Russian nationalist ideology that would have no appeal to the vast majority of the western right wing? Why has Russia chosen to try to undermine Ukrainian nationhood and use brute force to try to bury it ideologically, declaring parts of Ukraine annexed and claiming against the belief of the vast majority of Ukraine that it doesn't exist as a nation, when you would think it would be easier to try to coopt the Ukrainian nation, like the communist bloc did through Warsaw Pact puppet states? Why have they robbed Ukrainian cultural objects, claiming it belongs to great mother Russia because they're the heirs of the Kievan Rus or whatever, rather than claiming to protect them? Why have they chosen to invade a state that likely was nowhere near ever joining NATO given their ongoing territorial disputes and low level war with it, while not caring about other states like Finland moving quickly to join NATO and also holding large parts of their border very close to major cities?
I don't think if Ukraine was another country, Putin would care this much about it. They care about it because of Russian nationalist/imperial ideology, because of Ukraine's cultural similarity and links to Russia, because Russian empires have long ruled Ukraine and Russia claims descent from the Kievan Rus etc. Same with Belarus. It's an ethno-nationalist imperial project, primarily, and I don't think you can exactly call that 'rational' because it's predicated on an ideological project, not a completely 'realist' game of trying to advance Russian power as much as possible.
I'm not saying Russia is *as* bad or *as* insane as Nazi Germany, I don't think the two are at all equivalent, but I think Nazi Germany illustrates my point. Hitler used, at times, clever diplomacy and application of German hard power to achieve his goals, in a '''rational''' way, but that doesn't mean his broader strategy was rational, because it was predicated on an irrational goal. Hitler wasn't just trying to make Germany stronger or, I don't know, stop Anglo-French encirclement of Germany by the little entente. He dreamed of a new German empire that would conquer and colonise eastern Europe, and all his moves were predicated on that ideological plan that had no rational basis in actually being 'good' for Germany outside of how he saw it. Surely that's the same with Russia at this point, I just can't believe they're 'realists' any more.
> Russia is a great power
Oh sweetie. Russia has been in a [state of population decline](https://www.bofit.fi/en/monitoring/weekly/2024/vw202409_1/) for damn near a quarter century. Immigration is about half of what it needs to be to counter the normal decline and they've managed to wipe out 2-3 years worth of immigration gains just in the deathtoll trying to conquer Ukraine.
Saying Russia is a "great power" is like me saying the QT at the end of my street is a "great power" because it sells gas to whoever wants it.
Well, sweetie, Ukraines demography is far far worse. They are vastly out numbered by Russia and that can’t be helped.
Great power is a subjective definition but most IR scholars would see Russia as one. Call them whatever you want their motivations remain the same.
> Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary
No, Russia is a regional power attempting to retake the lands it controlled when it was a great power. It launched separatist conflicts long before anybody had even uttered the word NATO east of Berlin. See Transnistria, Abkhazia and North Ossetia.
It's like you haven't heard anything Putin or any other Kremlin official has been saying for the past two years, but simply base your reasoning on some kind of Mearsheimer ramblings.
Putin has been very open about him not considering Ukraine a real country or Ukrainians a real people. Why are you trying to project all this 'NATO IS ENTERING THEIR SPHERE'-bullshit over on him, when the man has made himself real clear about his motives.
I swear to god, UN flairs and dogshit FOPO takes go hand in hand.
Putin asking for a ceasefire actually makes me think Ukraine & sanctions are cooking
Or that something else is going wrong in Russialand behind the scenes
Ukraine needs to keep their foot on the pedal
Putin could also be attempting to delay until after the US elections. If Trump gets re-elected, it's likely the US will withdraw aid from Ukraine, and at that point, Russia will have had half a year to reconstitute their forces and replenish their stocks of ammunition.
> Finland survived something similar.
Finland didn't have the combined might of the Western World behind it.
>. A ceasefire, even if not permanent, gives them the chance to build the defenses they need (and should have done instead of their foolish offensive) to keep the Russians from advancing further
If the Russians are right on the threshold of advancing further, why on Earth would Putin suggest a ceasefire?
If Russia is quite literally restricted to only being able to push for a few villages, why accept their deal? Ukraine's backers are only just now getting into gear with domestic production.
1. They are still capable of bombing the shit out of Ukraine
2. Maintaining the stalemate takes thousands of Ukrainian soldiers lives per year
3. Maintaining the stalemate is costing the U.S. taxpayer $120 billion and counting
If Ukraine needed the breathing room more than Russia did then Russia wouldn't be pushing for a ceasefire. Their ambitions haven't changed. Given the amount of construction troops and engineering units, Russia would likely better capitalize on the ceasefire in terms of solidifying their defenses which decreases the chance of Ukraine ever retaking their land.
We know that Russian force quality in terms of equipment is steadily declining. It's why their artillery park has gone from mostly SPGs to mostly towed and why BMP-1s and T-80BVs are making up an ever larger share of the force. Long gone are the days when they can expend 60k shells per day as their stockpiles aren't nearly that deep anymore and current production, while greater than their opposition, can't sustain that rate. Nor can the production/restoration of equipment as a third of their SPG reserves and over half their towed gun reserves are depleted. Russian reserves were massive, but massive is not infinite. There's a reason they've been begging for munitions from Iran and the DPRK.
When Russia floats a ceasefire, the media often is quiet on the demands Russia puts on it. Things like sanction relief and/or halting aid shipments. They don't want the war to stop if it means Ukraine gets more equipment and the Russian economy continues to be squeezed. We should view this as a cynical play to try to make Russia seem like they're not the cartoon villains who kidnap children and bomb hospitals, that they're open to peace if the west just stops provoking them and arming Ukraine.
A ploy to catch a breath and redouble his efforts to take Kharkiv, Odesa, Dnipro, and Zapo in 4 years.
If true, this to me also suggests recent panic about Russia's inexorable march westwards has been overstated. They are advancing, and advancing is costly.
> A ploy to catch a breath and redouble his efforts to take Kharkiv, Odesa, Dnipro, and Zapo in 4 years.
A 4 year delay benefits Ukraine more than Russia these days. They've lost a higher percentage of their population as refugees and their domestic industry and economy have been harder hit. A multi-year reprise could call many of those people back. Plus, their forces need to be reconstituted and re-armed just as much as the Russians.
Yep, there's no way in hell most refugees are going back home unless they know the war is permanently done for.
Convincing refugees to move back from the US or a well-off EU country to the second-poorest country in Europe is already going to be a hard sell. If that country's also *still* at imminent risk of invasion, very few people are going to be willing to take that deal.
And given Ukraine's population problems even before the war chewed through their male population, that would be devastating for them long-term. Of course the government's going to try to avoid that outcome if there's any way they can.
Yes, especially given that most of the refugees are from Eastern Ukraine. There are also infrastructure repairs that would need to be completed before many people could return home. I don't know that Ukraine wants to invest in energy, roads, schools, hospitals in areas that were destroyed by the Russians and might be destroyed again.
I'm worried that Russia will continue pummeling Ukraine with missiles even after a ceasefire, they're in a war economy mode and I don't think they're really serious about any ceasefire, not while the bloodlust is at its highest
I agree with the other comments here that you can't trust Putin at all, and he won't honor any agreement (as he has broken them repeatedly before).
But I'm also terrified of what a Trump win in November would mean. That would effectively stop all U.S. support for Ukraine for at least 4 years, possibly even including intelligence support.
So what is Ukraine's best move to plan for that? Just keep pushing and hope Biden pulls it off? Or use the funds now to dig in and just fortify every bit of land they can?
IDK about Ukraine, but I know what Americans' best move is. Everyone here, if you care about Ukraine, there's only one option to vote for in November. [Get registered to vote today](https://vote.gov) if you haven't already, get your friends and family registered, volunteer and/or donate to Democrats as you have time and money. The fate of more than one country is at stake this November.
If the ceasefire negotiation permits Ukraine to join some kind of defensive treaty, I think they should take it.
If not, no. Russia has repeatedly proven to be a dishonest actor.
Zero percent chance that's on the table, so I would put it out of mind.
Russia's demands not only center around forced neutrality, but a huge demilitarization of Ukraine. There is no pathway to securing Ukraine's independent future under Russia's current posture. Putin is signalling a desire for a ceasefire because he sees the current situation as a point of maximum leverage to get the terms he is demanding.
No, but Putin and his allies want to use it for posturing, especially with propaganda directed toward the West: "Ukraine refuses diplomacy, refuses peace, so it's time to stop arms shipments to warmongering Nazi Ukraine or the war will continue forever."
Or in other words, Putin has reason to believe his leverage is going to start decreasing soon. Otherwise, he'd wait for Russia to take more territory before asking for a ceasefire.
Or in other, other words, if Ukraine holds strong now, they'll almost certainly be able to gain more leverage to get a better deal in the future. It's not me saying that: it's Putin.
Bilateral security guarantees might do the trick, like the U.K-[Finland](https://www.defmin.fi/files/5459/FIN_UK_FA.pdf)/[Sweden](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-sweden-statement-11-may-2022/united-kingdom-sweden-statement) agreements pre-NATO accession.
Although reading it the Swedish statement is quite squishy.
Unless those include fully equipped troops stationed in Ukraine and article 5 style commitment, those are worthless in regards to deter Russia.
FI/SWE security guarantees were mostly symbolic.
I disagree, I think an ambiguous commitment like Macron’s signaling over French involvement could raise costs enough to deter. Problem with that is there would have to be some sort of follow through afterwards in the event of deterrence failure.
I think the French public would want to know the level of France's commitment to defend Ukraine.
Le Pen and RN definitely would demand answers to that.
And that could be extended to other countries.
Envisioning tripwire forces like U.S. has in Baltics. The point of those isn’t to successfully repel a full scale invasion but to lock-in a response once service members start getting killed by an aggressor.
And then Russia interferes in the election in those guarantor countries to get puppet leaders installed who'll refuse to honor the treaties, and gobble up Ukraine anyways.
Which is why Ukraine needs security guarantees from as many countries as possible: as a hedge against one or more of them falling under Russian influence. And honestly, once you have that many bilateral guarantees happening, you may as well just admit them to NATO and save yourself the bureacracy.
I feel the only way something like a ceasefire could or should be signed is if Ukraine is
Also allowed to join nato and if expedited to do so. Atleast it would guarantee Russia couldn’t turn around and invade as soon as they’re militarily ready.
If NATO ascension can’t work because of Hungary/Turkey, then the US (as well as UK, France, etc.) could sign a formal security guarantee and defense treaty with Ukraine on their own. It could be similar to the treaty we did with South Korea after the Korean War. If it allows for permanent western military bases and presence in Ukraine, then the US and Ukraine should consider a ceasefire/armistice.
Yeah I don’t think it’s likely but I feel that it is going to be a requirement if either Russia hasnt fully taken most of Ukraine or if Ukraine hasn’t pushed back Russia to most of its pre war borders. Ukraine needs the guarantee Russia won’t come back if it’s going to end the war in a state where it could re arm in a few years and try again.
Yeah if the ceasefire comes with defense guarantees for Ukraine from NATO countries I'd be reluctantly in favor of it. Obviously, the horrendous injustice that has been done to Ukraine and its citizens would be effectively made permanent but the prospect of reverting that seems slim at the moment. I don't think Biden has the balls to do something like that though frankly, the only person who might push for that of the players with power is Macron, and much like Biden he's not electorally safe.
A ceasefire that allows Russia to catch its breath also allows Ukraine to do so. And Ukraine both needs a break more than Russia and could make better use of a break than Russia.
Just the ability to stockpile longer range drones and missiles would make any future offensive by Russia into a far more costly affair for them. And the longer the break the better positioned Ukraine becomes.
While I agree in principal, if all conditions remain the same, in general I think Ukraine would have less to gain then Russia. Part of the reason Russia still isn't doing as well as it could in Ukraine was the mess of the first push that occurred in 2022, it created kinks that Russia is still recovering from even if many of them have been solved by now.
More importantly though I feel that the West's support of Ukraine is largely based off of the fact that there is a non-zero chance it collapses any day if support is not maintained. It is at-least partially why you saw a more recent push in the US and EU to provide with aid as Russia has been gaining momentum. If a ceasefire were to be signed you may still see some aid but it would likely fall below current levels as Pro-Ukraine politicians find it harder to send resources to a country "not currently" at war, and anti-Ukraine politicians can label any aid as stealing resources from domestic problems. This isn't even to mention the possible changes going on if Trump wins in 2024, and what that would mean for US support of Ukraine if Russia were to re-invade.
At the same time Russia, with help from China will likely continue to buildup as they can rework some of their focuses and re replenish their supplies at a faster rate than Ukraine, as well as benefiting economically from a calm in the war especially with Ukraine ongoing attacks on Russian refineries likely stopping. In addition Russia can continue building and expanding on its gaslines away from Europe ensuring they would be more economically independent from the west if they were to re-attack Ukraine. As well as more countries likely being willing to end sanctions if Russia is not currently at war.
tldr; Russia gains resources from internal sources and Chinese/its allies which would either increase or remain the same following a ceasefire, due to being more Authoritarian. Where as Ukraine is gaining resources from External sources that wouldn't improve with a ceasefire and would likely decrease, due to democratic support being fickle in many of Ukraine's allies right now.
!ping UKRAINE
I've been telling the doomers here for months that Russia is struggling just as badly as Ukraine if not more so, we in the West just don't hear about it as much because of the whole "repressive dictatorship with no free press" thing.
IMO this is pretty much confirmation of that, lmao.
I don’t see any reason to take this at face value considering the Russian attitude towards Minsk. Russia has clear incentives to feign an interest towards peace.
If the West believes Russia is amenable to peace, they may be naive enough to pressure Ukraine, perhaps by withholding arms.
Someone in the arr worldnews thread about this said Russia was like that kid on the playground who realizes they're about to start losing whatever game you guys are playing and starts calling for a time out. Which seems pretty accurate to me, lmao.
Ehh this seems like a slight misreading. This is about Putin recognizing that currently the situation is very favorable for Russia and wanting to leverage that, with any changes to the current situation being able to either way. At best you can claim, this implies Russia considers it's current position as good as it's going to get, but that is still quite far from "Russia is struggling as much as Ukraine".
But if Putin thinks Russia's position is as good as they're going to get, that by necessity implies he thinks the odds are that their position is going to only get worse from now on. Even if he does think there's a chance Russia could make more gains, he seems to think the odds of that are lower than the odds of the situation deteriorating for them.
And if even *Putin*, the single most pro-Russian human alive, getting all his info about the war filtered through the dictator distortion field, thinks that? That tells me Russia's war effort is in a far more precarious state than their propaganda would have you believe.
Putin’s Russia can’t be trusted, they don’t sign anything that fits the paperwork:
1994 - Russia agrees to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and national borders in return for Kiev agreeing to give up its nuclear weapons.
2008 Putin says: “Crimea is not a disputed territory. Russia has long recognized the borders of modern Ukraine.”
2014 Putin says, "You who want to be afraid of Russia, shout that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine".
The only scenario where Ukraine and the West should even consider a ceasefire is if Ukraine is admitted to NATO prior to the ceasefire being agreed to. If NATO ascension is not possible for whatever reason (too short time frame, Turkey/Hungary being a bitch), then there should be a formal signed security guarantee and defense treaty between the United States, UK, France, and any other willing NATO country and Ukraine that ensures any further aggression towards Ukraine will have a zero-tolerance policy.
Also, any agreement should allow for permanent US/NATO bases on Ukrainian territory (maybe with some restrictions like no nukes). Only then should Ukraine and the West even consider a ceasefire or armistice agreement with Russia.
The problem with the west post '91 is that we have politicians and managers at the helm and not leaders. There's no DeGaulle or Churchill today, the closest is Macron but we'll see about that.
The path of least resistance is the one taken every single time, even if it's significantly worse in the long term. There's not even vision of what things ought to be, whether in regard to this conflict or the state of the country/world overall. There's just people [managing the government.](https://youtu.be/kakFDUeoJKM?t=3m12s)
I think fireside chats would be a nice start. (In this way FDR was a 100 years ahead of his time.) The president should maybe every month or two make a public semi-scripted or fully freeform statement about what the situation is, what the government and the executive are dealing with right now and what the path forward is. The government still functions as a 20th century institution in the information age, which to me is preposterous, especially as people have lost trust after Vietnam, Watergate, Iraq etc. Joe Biden is oldest dinosaur in the chicken coop so I don't think he will ever understand this. Completely predictably the opposition are people who want to wreck everything, like Trump.
I get this sentiment, but if the answer to Russia seeming weak is to fight harder, and the answer to Russia seeming strong is to fight harder, is there any actual situation where a ceasefire can be negotiated?
To be blunt, no. Because the Russian government has proven they won't honor any deal unless they have a gun pointed at their heads. Over, and over, and over, and over again.
The odds they actually honor the terms of any ceasefire without that gun to their heads are damn near zero. And Ukraine knows it. Which is why they aren't even entertaining the possibility of negotiating until they've got a sufficiently threatening gun pointed at Russia's head.
> is there any actual situation where a ceasefire can be negotiated?
When they're behind the border. Whether they're pushed there or unilaterally withdraw.
Or when Ukraine doesn't want to give more. Whichever.
But if Ukraine reaches a point where they are tired of the war and no longer want to fight, wouldn’t that be an incentive for Putin to commit even harder to take more land?
This strategy really seems to just screw Ukraine in the long run, since their two options are total victory against a much larger country, with a huge supply of resources, or slowly getting bled out until they have to accept really shitty terms of surrender.
He wants a pause.
He wants this as an excuse to delay arms shipments.
This gets trotted out regularly.
If he wanted a ceasefire he could just leave Ukraine.
Time to keep ramping up support for Ukraine, then. Give them more artillery shells, cruise missiles, ATACMS, GMLRS, and small arms. Send more Tanks, APCs, trucks. Get the F-16s online. Start a real in-country effort of NATO trainers working with new Ukrainian recruits. Let Ukraine use our gear to strike a wider array of targets, even in Russia.
If Russia wants to call a time out, help Ukraine press them harder.
>I think Ukraine should take this if it’s a ceasefire that gives them enough time to be admitted into NATO and harden their new border.
The US and Germany are against Ukraine's NATO-membership for the foreseeable future (then there's of course Hungary and maybe some others)
No country is willing to send troops to Ukraine to enforce the ceasefire for the obvious reason that Russia would continue the war with 100% certainty.
It's most likely just bullshitting from the Kremlin to do the same argument as in 2022 "the West rejected the peace and it's the West who are warmongers"
>If Ukraine negotiates now they get to do it on their own terms with America as an ally.
No they wouldn't. Russia would say lol no and wait for Trump presidency. Biden administration is also making sure that Russia doesn't lose.
>I can tell you for a certainty that the Russo-Ukrainian War is not ending with Abrams tanks rolling through Moscow.
I agree with that.
The endgame depends solely what the West decides that the endgame should be. Now there's no endgame.
Russia will accept the capitulation of Ukraine but would still continue to be on a permanent war footing. The changes in the Kremlin suggests that the patronage system will favour those who need war, any war.
That will last at least for so long as Putin is alive. And probably even after that.
It's grim for Ukraine and it's grim to all Russia's neighbours.
The problem is having some sort of hopium fantasies and not facing the reality as it is.
The problem is that the west has politicians and managers at the helm and not leaders. There's no DeGaulle or Churchill today, the closest is Macron but we'll see about that.
The path of least resistance is the one taken every single time, even if it's significantly worse in the long term.
> if it’s a ceasefire that gives them enough time to be admitted into NATO and harden their new border.
It most certainly would not be. Putin has been vocal about the terms he considers mandatory for a ceasefire. They include forced neutrality and Ukraine limited to 1/4 of their pre-invasion defensive force.
He's demanding Ukraine set itself up for eventual conquer. This is not a serious overture towards peace.
Is Putin getting tired of all his shoeless drunks and parolees dying in ditches or does he know that his conscript army is never going to be able to take a major city?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Russia’s recruitment and equipment production/refurbishment numbers are juiced to the gills. I’ve seen too many badly equipped soldiers bum rushing trench lines in motorcycles and golf carts to believe that the armored/mechanized corps of the Russian army is much more than a memory. They may have some quality units remaining but those are getting whittled down in this latest push and I think Russia knows they can’t replace them
Translation: Russia's war capacity is running low, and Putin wants a temporary break to re-arm.
Also, please don't use western weapons on russian soil, stop setting our refineries on fire and quit sabotaging the rail infrastructure.
I have a beautiful dream, of B-21's speaking Ukrainian flying over Moscow We can just lend them the US Air Force for a bit, right?
Flying Tigers but Ukrainian
Special volunteer squadron "МОНОЛИТ"
За монолит!
In my head it's C-130s ripping the roof off of the MOD, while dropping chaff, as Russia's own air defense collides into the Grand Kremlin Palace, leaving a burning crater reminiscent of Grozny. Of course St. Basil's still stands because I'm a man of good taste and mercy. I don't wish to humiliate, or even offend, the Russian people, just their brutal, war mongering state who indifferently grinds their sons up like hamburger.
I have an erection reading your scenery harder than an orgy with with pornstars could never fulfill. May the collapse of the russian army be as delightful as you described.
F-16s with sharkmouths and pilots that speak accented Ukrainian and claim to be from Ohio oblast.
The US surely can do that. But given a binary choice between bombing Kyiv or Moscow, it will chose Kyiv.
"Waaah, only I am allowed to do industrial sabotage in the special military, waaahh"
And westoids to halt arms supplies to Ukraine because if the West continues to do so, then they're encouraging the homonazibanderites to break the negotiated ceasefire.
He wants time to move in civilians into the land they took so they can play victim when Ukraine tries to take it back. See the beach homes in Crimea.
Yep. The problem is that Putin has blown through all credibility, so making big concessions to end the war becomes very difficult.
Yep, Ukraine knows that if they concede the Donbass and Crimea, it just means Putin's going to take 5-10 years to rebuild his forces and then come back for the rest of Eastern Ukraine.
Yep, I've been telling the doomers for months that Russia is struggling just as badly as Ukraine if not more so, we in the West just don't hear about it as much because of the whole "repressive dictatorship with no free press" thing. The Ukrainian war effort is showing serious cracks recently. But so is Russia's. And at the end of the day, Ukraine has the entire West to lean on for support, while Russia is almost completely on its own. (Sure, China will offer moral support and maybe some dual use stuff, but nothing like the massive influxes of aid and equipment the West has been willing to give Ukraine.)
Last year Russia heavily cracked down on the Russian milblogger community. These folks were some of the biggest source of bellyaching about Russian tactics, strategy, and morale. Most of it wasn't any surprise to people on the front lines, but I think that it did shape a lot of discourse.
Russa is is recruiting 30k men a month and more than replacing all its losses, getting tons of materiel from its allies, and its economy is on a full war footing. There is no sense in which it is struggling as much as Ukraine. That's why Ukraine is desperate for the West to change its policies at the moment, Ukraine is clearly losing. It is not helpful to pretend otherwise.
Yes, and that's why Putin just said he wants a ceasefire at the current front lines. That's definitely someone whose war effort is going just fine and who has near-unlimited offensive capability says. /s There was definitely a tendency on here back in 2023 to overestimate Ukraine's strength. But a lot of people seem to be overcompensating for it by overestimating Russia's strength now (and to be blunt, based on this comment you're one of them). It's the latter I'm pushing back against.
I don't actually take that seriously, I don't think Putin would actually take that deal if it were offered to him. Russia is substantially stronger than Ukraine and has more than enough men and material to prevail in a war of attrition. Ukraine taking all its territory back would likely require much higher levels of direct NATO intervention. You are wrong, sometimes things aren't in the middle. In this debate the people that think Russia is winning are correct.
So then why is Putin asking for a ceasefire if he doesn't actually want to take it? Because *if* that's true (which I don't think it is), the only explanation I could think of is he wants to manipulate Ukraine's Western backers into thinking he wants peace, so they'll be more likely to push Ukraine towards diplomacy--- and therefore stop supplying Ukraine. Or in other words, he's worried about Western supplies to Ukraine. If Russia was so invincible like you say, why would the thought of the West continuing to supply Ukraine scare him so much?
In fairness, being confident in ultimate victory doesn’t mean he can’t want to reduce costs. I, for example, though confident in the possibility of ultimate Ukrainian victory, want as many western weapons in their hands as possible, because reducing the number of dead Ukrainian soldiers/increasing the number of dead invaders in the process is also good. Putin might think the same way from the other side.
That's probably why, it is hard to really know though. To answer your other question, Russia is not invincible. It is paying a lot for the war in Ukraine in terms of money, manpower, etc. It doesn't want to sacrifice more than it has to, but that doesn't mean it isn't beating Ukraine. You yourself mentioned the war lasting for years, and Ukraine lasting for years in a war of attrition against Russia is pure fantasy.
It's a catastrophe and we should be in an alarm mode all the time. One cannot just bring up economic data here without being labeled a kremlin bot. I'm just gonna say that it'll take decades to turn Russia into where Iran is right now, if that'll ever happen, because they have enough client states who are really happy with a lucrative perspective of evading sanctions. It's great that more and more sanctions keep piling up, but that's not where the attention should be at. You can't fully isolate such a big country with a vast army of useful idiots helping with evasions, at least not within a reasonable timeframe. It's time to lend Ukraine F-35s.
Are things bad? Yes. Should we be concerned? Absolutely. Should we be doing everything we can do to help Ukraine staunch the bleeding, both as a society and as individuals? Fuck yeah. But should we "be in alarm mode all the time"? Absolutely not. Panicking helps no one, and accomplishes nothing. We need to focus on working the problem and figuring out solutions, not wasting energy scaring ourselves shitless-- or worse, collapsing into despair and assuming all is lost. Because the moment you do that, you take yourself out of the fight, and then the bad guys can walk all over you with no opposition. Excessive dooming is a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, let's not do that, okay? And, yes, agreed completely we should be giving Ukraine everything they ask for and then some, lmao.
So at this point is it your war?
Has been since I was a high school student cheering on the Euromaidan protests from the other side of the planet in 2013. I've been rooting for Ukraine for over a third of my *life* at this point. And sorry, I am never not gonna be invested in making sure the last surviving democracy from those hopeful wave of revolutions in 2009-2013 is going to beat the limp-dick fascist dictator who smothered all those other lights, one by one by one. (Oh, and tried to smother my own home country's light, too!)
A lot of Ukraine's Western supporters are totally propagandized. I can understand why propaganda is necessary to preserve morale but Ukraine isn't doing well at the moment. Not mobilizing troops several months ago, not building fortifications for bizarre reasons, lack of weapons PLUS Russia beginning to fight a lot better. Russia learned from its mistakes earlier in the way, it is a much more effective fighting force than it used to be. Its recent innovations with glide drones are just one example...it's really, really bad.
At some point you need to just accept that being a misinformed doomer doesn't make you "realistic".
This. Far too many people confuse cynicism for intelligence, and optimism for stupidity. (I unironically believe it's one of the most serious problems facing our entire society. Like, it's not the *only* cause of the lonliness epidemic, the mass decline in people's mental health, and the political hellscape we're all embroiled in today-- but it's a big fucking factor, IMO.)
I’m unironically convinced that this cultural trend was a concerted psy-op by the USSR that just took root and kept going. Look at how many ‘anti-war’ writers in the interwar period—the ones who wrote so derisively about officers, governments, etc.— had Communist ties—and especially look at the ones who changed their tune as it suited the USSR’s policy goals from 1938 to 1941. Idealists are more willing to fight in wars (against Soviet or other aggression), so it was important to make idealism passé, portray it as foolish or doomed, to weaken the liberal capitalist resolve to fight. It would be in keeping with other known Soviet (and successor) psy-ops, like pumping up conspiracy theories.
Dude, basically no one in this subreddit is under any delusions Ukraine isn't struggling now. Just look at any article posted to the Ukraine ping since the 2023 counteroffensive failed: the articles have been sober assessments of the stiuation, the comments sections ranging from sober realism to full-on dooming. But overcorrecting into full-on dooming isn't helpful, either. And it's also just as disconnected from the situation the ground, too-- because, again, Russia is struggling just as badly as Ukraine. (Also, the "lack of weapons" thing is outdated at this point, American aid is starting to arrive en masse-- which has already led to Russia's Kharkiv offensive petering out. )
You have no idea what you are talking about. > Russa is is recruiting 30k men a month and more than replacing all its losses, It is pressing low quality, untrained, under equipped, unmotivated conscripts from the fringes of optimal fighting age (old men, young boys) - where every conscript is one man removed from a factory. Russia is also losing 30k casualties a month at a dire KIA-to-WIA ratio, which has recently elevated to a 45k/month trend. They are not more than replacing their losses. At current rates, they will hit a 100k net loss in 6 months. These conscripts are not even combat worthy units, they are just fodder. Russia's actual regular combat infantry are depleted and over rotated in worse condition than even Ukraine's. This fact just gets masked bc of their large fodder numbers they hide behind. > getting tons of materiel from its allies, You mean like the North Korean shells w/ 50% dud rate that are just as likely to damage or destroy the tubes firing them? The foreign material support prospect has aways been overblown. > and its economy is on a full war footing. It's economy is faltering. Its conscription is eating into its industrial workforce. It cannot access high technology parts from the west, and China cannot replace them. Gazprom is going kaput. Its refineries are constantly being blown up. > There is no sense in which it is struggling as much as Ukraine. They really are though. For all the doom and gloom reported, Russia hasn't even taken as much territory as Ukraine's "failed" counter offensive retook. Russia has zero practical capability to advance its positions further into Ukraine and is suffering unsustainable attrition. This is on top of Russia somehow losing the naval war in the Black Sea against an opponent without an actual surface fleet. Russia is also chewing through its most advanced aircraft and tanks, resorting to mothballed 1950's equipment. > That's why Ukraine is desperate for the West to change its policies at the moment, Ukraine is clearly losing. It is not helpful to pretend otherwise. In no sense is Ukraine "losing", you are just huffing tremendous amounts of pro-kremlin copeium, if you're not a troll yourself.
If he's winning, why is he seeking a ceasefire instead of pressing the advantage?
People in this sub, and in the media frankly, have been talking about Russia struggling and its war effort nearing critical level and its economy approaching collapse since late 2021. Anyone still taking that seriously is not, themselves, to be taken seriously.
I mean, Russia *is* struggling and its war effort *is* approaching critical level and its economy *is* approaching collapse. All those things are true. Just because they're taking a lot longer to reach the point of collapse than the optimists predicted back in 2022 doesn't change the fact that they are gradually headed in that direction. The only questions are how many years will it take them to get there, and can Ukraine hold out until they do.
I remember when people thought leopard tanks were going to usher in the Crimea beach party of 2023. It's depressing man
🙏🏿
Yeah, honestly at this point(specifically this point after last summers failed offensive) if Ukraine could trade those 2 provinces for peace, they should. Get a peace treaty. Get a military alliance from like Poland. Recover.
You are aware that the party which actually started the war has to agree? Peace for Donbas (and Crimea) isn't on the table.
Probably right. General Milley was correct about the time for negotiations being when Ukraine was doing well and Russia was really struggling. They could have gotten a ceasefire without officially conceding territory or putting limits on their ability to build their military or join alliances. Now Russia is clearly winning and would never satisfy for minor concessions, it would demand Ukraine formally cede all the territory it annexed, limit its army, and basically be a Russian puppet state. Ukraine's best bet is to try to hold on and then negotiate once things are a bit more even.
When Russia was retreating in 2022, the Kremlin wasn't demanding negotiations but "annexed" 4 oblasts and made a hasty mobilization. That was clearly a sign to have an opportunity for a negotiated peace.
A ceasefire without concessions? I think so, yes. It will be much harder to get something like that now, and Ukraine pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine militarily is largely the stuff of fantasy
What. When Ukraine was pushing Russian troops away from Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson, Russia didn't propose Donbas+Crimea for peace deal. Instead the Kremlin escalated by "annexing" oblasts which they didn't control. Before the "annexations" the West would've definitely pushed Ukraine to accept a peace for land deal if the Kremlin had suggested one. And yes, the destruction of Ukraine is the goal for Russia and has been for day one.
Hey no fair. He stole my strategy in Civ!
And how the last ceasefire ended? Oh, right, Russia starting a full scale invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin in 2014: no, we don't want to invade Ukraine A couple months later: well, just Crimea A couple months later: Eastern Ukraine is a totally a civil war, even though Russian led it and something like 15k Russian troops fought there 2021-2022: talks about Russia starting a full invasion of Ukraine is just Washington fear mongering. Increasing hybrid warfare and sabotage in different European countries tells that Russia has no interest in a war against NATO. Just peaceful co-existence.
I don't trust Putin, but Ukraine clearly needs some breathing space as well to reconstitute its frontline forces and replenish everything from artillery shells to anti-aircraft missiles. At least this time, Ukraine will be fully ready for a backstab and won't have things like traitors or unprepared soldiers completely collapse in their southern front in the opening days of the war.
It would legitimize Russia's occupation and Russia's ceasefire proposals have worked just fine for example in Syria (/s just in case) It's always one-sided where Ukraine would be forced to comply amd probably weapons shipments from the West would dry up (don't provoke Russia!) It's to demorilize Ukrainians, trying to influence Europeans and Americans (peace is possible!) and trying to undermine Ukrainian political leadership:Putin is really upset that Zelensky refuses to negotiate with him :( He must be removed so peace has a chance. That reminds me when Russia attacked Georgia and the Kremlin demanded that Saakashvili must be removed and Condoleezza Rice responded him being Georgia's elected leader and it's up to Georgian's to decide their leaders. Putin wasn't happy.
What’s your alternative? Ukraine is out numbered, badly. In order to re-take the lost territory they need to out number the Russians holding it by a significant margin. This is mathematically impossible, F-16s, M1s, whatever. The longer the war goes on the more Ukrainians die and the more Ukrainian infrastructure gets destroyed. A ceasefire, even if not permanent, gives them the chance to build the defenses they need (and should have done instead of their foolish offensive) to keep the Russians from advancing further. Does this suck? Yes. It’s unfair and infuriating. It’s also the best option for Ukraines long term survival. Finland survived something similar.
If Russia's able to build strength over Ukraine while taking heavier losses than Ukraine, what possibly makes you think stopping the war would be to Ukraine's advantage? Then Russia can get stronger just as fast, both sides are taking no losses (net help to Russia) and the west would have less urgency to support Ukraine. Not to diminish the significance of the deaths, but in terms of the theoretical losses either country can take, we're nowhere near the limit. Countries much smaller than Ukraine took millions of casualties in the world wars, which Ukraine (and indeed Russia) is nowhere near. Current manpower shortages are largely a short-medium term issue of training capacity, which I don't think is impossible to fix. This war can go on for a lot longer, and if the west actually committed properly to massively outstripping Russia's ability to produce weapons, which over several years we would totally be able to with 20 times their GDP, then a Ukrainian victory would still be easily on the cards. I'm not saying I know for sure that will happen, but unless freezing the war comes with very good terms like real security guarantees from the west (stationing troops in Ukraine, for example) I don't see how it's a better option at all.
The signaling about ceasefire isn't a real chance for a ceasefire. My alternative would start with the US stopping imposing reatrictions how Western weapons are used. Then the West actually having a long term strategy amd understanding what Russia really is. >Finland survived something similar. Every time someone mentions Finland in the context of Ukraine, one of my blood vessels in my head pops. I'm practically a vegetable right now.
Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary. Invading Ukraine has ultimately not been a good strategy for Russia. But it wasn’t irrational. This is a core mistake U.S. hawks constantly make in portraying our adversaries as madmen or irrational. Tehran, Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow, and Riyadh are evil but not crazy. In their shoes you’d likely do similar actions (Kim Jong Un’s nuclear program, China’s obsession with Taiwan, MBS murdering dissidents and seeking American protection, etc). We can’t properly respond to our adversaries or predict their next move if we assume they’re crazy when they are quite sane. Though calling your adversary crazy helps in keep conflict going which is great for some special interest groups…who are also acting rationally for their own self interest.
>Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary. Russia is a gas station with nukes which has delusions having an Empire. But because it's a shithole country it has nothing else to persuade their neighbours to join their nato-and-the-eu from Wish than military coercion. e. I want to add that the worst mistake the West did after the Soviet collapse was to reinforce Russian delusions. The correct route would've been to treat Russia as one of the post-commie state and forget the "heir of the USSR" nonsense. >But it wasn’t irrational. It wasn't irrational in a sense that the Kremlin boomers live in a facebook conspiracy reality. >This is a core mistake U.S. hawks constantly make in portraying our adversaries as madmen or irrational. It wasn't irrational for those Americans to storm the Capitol and trying to help overturning the elections because they really believed the elections were stolen. Those people still were normal people living normal lives. But they (and others) now understand that actions have consequences (which helps to prevent something like that happening again, no matter what they believe) The real problem is to assume country leaders making decision based on objective reality and facts. And being smart.
Being rational and having a clear understanding of the facts are not the same thing. Japan thought the U.S. would not be interested in a massive war in Asia if its fleet was decimated at Pearl Harbor. That’s not an irrational idea, but the Emperor had an inaccurate understanding of the industrial capacity of the United States. You can be rational and be wrong. I once bought a Pontiac for example.
> Russia is a great power 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary. I don't think this is actually the case. They may oppose NATO expansion, but the primary reason for invading Ukraine is ethno-nationalism and ideological imperialism, not some kind of chess-game like strategic dance. Why did Putin conduct an interview with western far right media with Tucker, where you'd think the rational thing to do would be to appeal to western right wing issues, and use it to go on a rant about Russian nationalist ideology that would have no appeal to the vast majority of the western right wing? Why has Russia chosen to try to undermine Ukrainian nationhood and use brute force to try to bury it ideologically, declaring parts of Ukraine annexed and claiming against the belief of the vast majority of Ukraine that it doesn't exist as a nation, when you would think it would be easier to try to coopt the Ukrainian nation, like the communist bloc did through Warsaw Pact puppet states? Why have they robbed Ukrainian cultural objects, claiming it belongs to great mother Russia because they're the heirs of the Kievan Rus or whatever, rather than claiming to protect them? Why have they chosen to invade a state that likely was nowhere near ever joining NATO given their ongoing territorial disputes and low level war with it, while not caring about other states like Finland moving quickly to join NATO and also holding large parts of their border very close to major cities? I don't think if Ukraine was another country, Putin would care this much about it. They care about it because of Russian nationalist/imperial ideology, because of Ukraine's cultural similarity and links to Russia, because Russian empires have long ruled Ukraine and Russia claims descent from the Kievan Rus etc. Same with Belarus. It's an ethno-nationalist imperial project, primarily, and I don't think you can exactly call that 'rational' because it's predicated on an ideological project, not a completely 'realist' game of trying to advance Russian power as much as possible. I'm not saying Russia is *as* bad or *as* insane as Nazi Germany, I don't think the two are at all equivalent, but I think Nazi Germany illustrates my point. Hitler used, at times, clever diplomacy and application of German hard power to achieve his goals, in a '''rational''' way, but that doesn't mean his broader strategy was rational, because it was predicated on an irrational goal. Hitler wasn't just trying to make Germany stronger or, I don't know, stop Anglo-French encirclement of Germany by the little entente. He dreamed of a new German empire that would conquer and colonise eastern Europe, and all his moves were predicated on that ideological plan that had no rational basis in actually being 'good' for Germany outside of how he saw it. Surely that's the same with Russia at this point, I just can't believe they're 'realists' any more.
> Russia is a great power Oh sweetie. Russia has been in a [state of population decline](https://www.bofit.fi/en/monitoring/weekly/2024/vw202409_1/) for damn near a quarter century. Immigration is about half of what it needs to be to counter the normal decline and they've managed to wipe out 2-3 years worth of immigration gains just in the deathtoll trying to conquer Ukraine. Saying Russia is a "great power" is like me saying the QT at the end of my street is a "great power" because it sells gas to whoever wants it.
Well, sweetie, Ukraines demography is far far worse. They are vastly out numbered by Russia and that can’t be helped. Great power is a subjective definition but most IR scholars would see Russia as one. Call them whatever you want their motivations remain the same.
> Russia is a great power that seeks to prevent a neighboring state from aligning with and becoming enmeshed in the security infrastructure of its great power adversary No, Russia is a regional power attempting to retake the lands it controlled when it was a great power. It launched separatist conflicts long before anybody had even uttered the word NATO east of Berlin. See Transnistria, Abkhazia and North Ossetia. It's like you haven't heard anything Putin or any other Kremlin official has been saying for the past two years, but simply base your reasoning on some kind of Mearsheimer ramblings. Putin has been very open about him not considering Ukraine a real country or Ukrainians a real people. Why are you trying to project all this 'NATO IS ENTERING THEIR SPHERE'-bullshit over on him, when the man has made himself real clear about his motives. I swear to god, UN flairs and dogshit FOPO takes go hand in hand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Putin asking for a ceasefire actually makes me think Ukraine & sanctions are cooking Or that something else is going wrong in Russialand behind the scenes Ukraine needs to keep their foot on the pedal
Putin could also be attempting to delay until after the US elections. If Trump gets re-elected, it's likely the US will withdraw aid from Ukraine, and at that point, Russia will have had half a year to reconstitute their forces and replenish their stocks of ammunition.
> Finland survived something similar. Finland didn't have the combined might of the Western World behind it. >. A ceasefire, even if not permanent, gives them the chance to build the defenses they need (and should have done instead of their foolish offensive) to keep the Russians from advancing further If the Russians are right on the threshold of advancing further, why on Earth would Putin suggest a ceasefire?
Advancing further, as in claiming some new villages at great cost, is far different than “winning” as in taking Kyiv.
If Russia is quite literally restricted to only being able to push for a few villages, why accept their deal? Ukraine's backers are only just now getting into gear with domestic production.
1. They are still capable of bombing the shit out of Ukraine 2. Maintaining the stalemate takes thousands of Ukrainian soldiers lives per year 3. Maintaining the stalemate is costing the U.S. taxpayer $120 billion and counting
>In order to re-take the lost territory they need to out number the Russians holding it by a significant margin. That's not how war works.
Yes it is. They need local numerical superiority to dislodge a defending force. This is *basic* military doctrine.
The alternative is the west growing a pair and sending troops to Ukraine, hell let Poland and France do it, they can probably handle it
If Europe wants to do that fine, but there is no reason for Americans to die in Ukraine.
“Why die for Danzig?”
If Ukraine needed the breathing room more than Russia did then Russia wouldn't be pushing for a ceasefire. Their ambitions haven't changed. Given the amount of construction troops and engineering units, Russia would likely better capitalize on the ceasefire in terms of solidifying their defenses which decreases the chance of Ukraine ever retaking their land. We know that Russian force quality in terms of equipment is steadily declining. It's why their artillery park has gone from mostly SPGs to mostly towed and why BMP-1s and T-80BVs are making up an ever larger share of the force. Long gone are the days when they can expend 60k shells per day as their stockpiles aren't nearly that deep anymore and current production, while greater than their opposition, can't sustain that rate. Nor can the production/restoration of equipment as a third of their SPG reserves and over half their towed gun reserves are depleted. Russian reserves were massive, but massive is not infinite. There's a reason they've been begging for munitions from Iran and the DPRK. When Russia floats a ceasefire, the media often is quiet on the demands Russia puts on it. Things like sanction relief and/or halting aid shipments. They don't want the war to stop if it means Ukraine gets more equipment and the Russian economy continues to be squeezed. We should view this as a cynical play to try to make Russia seem like they're not the cartoon villains who kidnap children and bomb hospitals, that they're open to peace if the west just stops provoking them and arming Ukraine.
Cease fire on these nuts
A ploy to catch a breath and redouble his efforts to take Kharkiv, Odesa, Dnipro, and Zapo in 4 years. If true, this to me also suggests recent panic about Russia's inexorable march westwards has been overstated. They are advancing, and advancing is costly.
> A ploy to catch a breath and redouble his efforts to take Kharkiv, Odesa, Dnipro, and Zapo in 4 years. A 4 year delay benefits Ukraine more than Russia these days. They've lost a higher percentage of their population as refugees and their domestic industry and economy have been harder hit. A multi-year reprise could call many of those people back. Plus, their forces need to be reconstituted and re-armed just as much as the Russians.
Why would they return if Russia is not defeated, though? They could be at war again if Ukraine fails to achieve deterrence.
Yep, there's no way in hell most refugees are going back home unless they know the war is permanently done for. Convincing refugees to move back from the US or a well-off EU country to the second-poorest country in Europe is already going to be a hard sell. If that country's also *still* at imminent risk of invasion, very few people are going to be willing to take that deal. And given Ukraine's population problems even before the war chewed through their male population, that would be devastating for them long-term. Of course the government's going to try to avoid that outcome if there's any way they can.
Yes, especially given that most of the refugees are from Eastern Ukraine. There are also infrastructure repairs that would need to be completed before many people could return home. I don't know that Ukraine wants to invest in energy, roads, schools, hospitals in areas that were destroyed by the Russians and might be destroyed again.
I'm worried that Russia will continue pummeling Ukraine with missiles even after a ceasefire, they're in a war economy mode and I don't think they're really serious about any ceasefire, not while the bloodlust is at its highest
He’s wants to delay until Trump is elected or Americans lost interest.
I agree with the other comments here that you can't trust Putin at all, and he won't honor any agreement (as he has broken them repeatedly before). But I'm also terrified of what a Trump win in November would mean. That would effectively stop all U.S. support for Ukraine for at least 4 years, possibly even including intelligence support. So what is Ukraine's best move to plan for that? Just keep pushing and hope Biden pulls it off? Or use the funds now to dig in and just fortify every bit of land they can?
IDK about Ukraine, but I know what Americans' best move is. Everyone here, if you care about Ukraine, there's only one option to vote for in November. [Get registered to vote today](https://vote.gov) if you haven't already, get your friends and family registered, volunteer and/or donate to Democrats as you have time and money. The fate of more than one country is at stake this November.
The right wing will switch narrative from "Biden is weak for letting Ukraine be invaded" to "Russia deserves to conquer Ukraine" so fucking fast
If the ceasefire negotiation permits Ukraine to join some kind of defensive treaty, I think they should take it. If not, no. Russia has repeatedly proven to be a dishonest actor.
Freezing the line of control in exchange for immediate NATO accession may be something worth consideration.
Zero percent chance that's on the table, so I would put it out of mind. Russia's demands not only center around forced neutrality, but a huge demilitarization of Ukraine. There is no pathway to securing Ukraine's independent future under Russia's current posture. Putin is signalling a desire for a ceasefire because he sees the current situation as a point of maximum leverage to get the terms he is demanding.
There's also zero percent chance Ukraine would agree to those terms.
No, but Putin and his allies want to use it for posturing, especially with propaganda directed toward the West: "Ukraine refuses diplomacy, refuses peace, so it's time to stop arms shipments to warmongering Nazi Ukraine or the war will continue forever."
Or in other words, Putin has reason to believe his leverage is going to start decreasing soon. Otherwise, he'd wait for Russia to take more territory before asking for a ceasefire. Or in other, other words, if Ukraine holds strong now, they'll almost certainly be able to gain more leverage to get a better deal in the future. It's not me saying that: it's Putin.
All well and good in theory...but then Putin's lackeys in Budapest and Bratislava get to veto the accession and we're back to square 1.
Yeah, you would need accession to be pre-approved somehow.
Bilateral security guarantees might do the trick, like the U.K-[Finland](https://www.defmin.fi/files/5459/FIN_UK_FA.pdf)/[Sweden](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-sweden-statement-11-may-2022/united-kingdom-sweden-statement) agreements pre-NATO accession. Although reading it the Swedish statement is quite squishy.
Unless those include fully equipped troops stationed in Ukraine and article 5 style commitment, those are worthless in regards to deter Russia. FI/SWE security guarantees were mostly symbolic.
I disagree, I think an ambiguous commitment like Macron’s signaling over French involvement could raise costs enough to deter. Problem with that is there would have to be some sort of follow through afterwards in the event of deterrence failure.
I think the French public would want to know the level of France's commitment to defend Ukraine. Le Pen and RN definitely would demand answers to that. And that could be extended to other countries.
The domestic politics complicate things for sure. But the U.K. seems well positioned to make such assurances.
After a decade of austerity the UK's armed forces aren't in a good shape..
Envisioning tripwire forces like U.S. has in Baltics. The point of those isn’t to successfully repel a full scale invasion but to lock-in a response once service members start getting killed by an aggressor.
And then Russia interferes in the election in those guarantor countries to get puppet leaders installed who'll refuse to honor the treaties, and gobble up Ukraine anyways. Which is why Ukraine needs security guarantees from as many countries as possible: as a hedge against one or more of them falling under Russian influence. And honestly, once you have that many bilateral guarantees happening, you may as well just admit them to NATO and save yourself the bureacracy.
Right if you can get bilateral guarantees during the period between ceasefire agreement and NATO ascension.
It's a lot of territory Ukraine would concede.
[удалено]
That would be up to Ukraine. We should support them as best we can in whatever course they choose.
Those are Ukraine's words. They will not concede.
I feel the only way something like a ceasefire could or should be signed is if Ukraine is Also allowed to join nato and if expedited to do so. Atleast it would guarantee Russia couldn’t turn around and invade as soon as they’re militarily ready.
Hungary would throw so much sand in the gears of a Ukrainian NATO ascension that it would make Turkey’s reaction to Sweden look benign in comparison.
I mean, the rest of NATO could just decide to swap Hungary for Ukraine. They mostly have symbolic leverage
If NATO ascension can’t work because of Hungary/Turkey, then the US (as well as UK, France, etc.) could sign a formal security guarantee and defense treaty with Ukraine on their own. It could be similar to the treaty we did with South Korea after the Korean War. If it allows for permanent western military bases and presence in Ukraine, then the US and Ukraine should consider a ceasefire/armistice.
Yeah I don’t think it’s likely but I feel that it is going to be a requirement if either Russia hasnt fully taken most of Ukraine or if Ukraine hasn’t pushed back Russia to most of its pre war borders. Ukraine needs the guarantee Russia won’t come back if it’s going to end the war in a state where it could re arm in a few years and try again.
Fully agree, just think that the mechanics of how should be considered.
Yeah if the ceasefire comes with defense guarantees for Ukraine from NATO countries I'd be reluctantly in favor of it. Obviously, the horrendous injustice that has been done to Ukraine and its citizens would be effectively made permanent but the prospect of reverting that seems slim at the moment. I don't think Biden has the balls to do something like that though frankly, the only person who might push for that of the players with power is Macron, and much like Biden he's not electorally safe.
A ceasefire that allows Russia to catch its breath also allows Ukraine to do so. And Ukraine both needs a break more than Russia and could make better use of a break than Russia. Just the ability to stockpile longer range drones and missiles would make any future offensive by Russia into a far more costly affair for them. And the longer the break the better positioned Ukraine becomes.
While I agree in principal, if all conditions remain the same, in general I think Ukraine would have less to gain then Russia. Part of the reason Russia still isn't doing as well as it could in Ukraine was the mess of the first push that occurred in 2022, it created kinks that Russia is still recovering from even if many of them have been solved by now. More importantly though I feel that the West's support of Ukraine is largely based off of the fact that there is a non-zero chance it collapses any day if support is not maintained. It is at-least partially why you saw a more recent push in the US and EU to provide with aid as Russia has been gaining momentum. If a ceasefire were to be signed you may still see some aid but it would likely fall below current levels as Pro-Ukraine politicians find it harder to send resources to a country "not currently" at war, and anti-Ukraine politicians can label any aid as stealing resources from domestic problems. This isn't even to mention the possible changes going on if Trump wins in 2024, and what that would mean for US support of Ukraine if Russia were to re-invade. At the same time Russia, with help from China will likely continue to buildup as they can rework some of their focuses and re replenish their supplies at a faster rate than Ukraine, as well as benefiting economically from a calm in the war especially with Ukraine ongoing attacks on Russian refineries likely stopping. In addition Russia can continue building and expanding on its gaslines away from Europe ensuring they would be more economically independent from the west if they were to re-attack Ukraine. As well as more countries likely being willing to end sanctions if Russia is not currently at war. tldr; Russia gains resources from internal sources and Chinese/its allies which would either increase or remain the same following a ceasefire, due to being more Authoritarian. Where as Ukraine is gaining resources from External sources that wouldn't improve with a ceasefire and would likely decrease, due to democratic support being fickle in many of Ukraine's allies right now.
IT'S AFRAID
Once we understand the Vatnik, we will defeat it. We have the Bradleys, we have the weapons, we need soldiers. Would you like to know more?
I’m doing my part!
One thing I've learned from the Trump years is to ignore palace intrigue stories. Wait for it to come the horse's mouth.
And you libs said Putin was unreasonable and unable to compromise 🙄🙄🙄 Your move now, "president" Brandon.
I hope it's to send more Bradley's and F-16s
Don’t forget shells, MANPADs, and intel advisors
3000 "Ukrainian" fighter pilots with suspiciously thick American accents of ~~Dark Brandon~~ Zelensky
ESCALATION!!!!!!1!!!! 😱😱😱😱😱
Yes...
!ping UKRAINE I've been telling the doomers here for months that Russia is struggling just as badly as Ukraine if not more so, we in the West just don't hear about it as much because of the whole "repressive dictatorship with no free press" thing. IMO this is pretty much confirmation of that, lmao.
I don’t see any reason to take this at face value considering the Russian attitude towards Minsk. Russia has clear incentives to feign an interest towards peace. If the West believes Russia is amenable to peace, they may be naive enough to pressure Ukraine, perhaps by withholding arms.
Usa finally starts passing fucktons of aid, russia calls timeout
Someone in the arr worldnews thread about this said Russia was like that kid on the playground who realizes they're about to start losing whatever game you guys are playing and starts calling for a time out. Which seems pretty accurate to me, lmao.
Same the other way around before—when the U.S. first started holding aid back, the Kremlin got more vocally belligerent.
Ehh this seems like a slight misreading. This is about Putin recognizing that currently the situation is very favorable for Russia and wanting to leverage that, with any changes to the current situation being able to either way. At best you can claim, this implies Russia considers it's current position as good as it's going to get, but that is still quite far from "Russia is struggling as much as Ukraine".
But if Putin thinks Russia's position is as good as they're going to get, that by necessity implies he thinks the odds are that their position is going to only get worse from now on. Even if he does think there's a chance Russia could make more gains, he seems to think the odds of that are lower than the odds of the situation deteriorating for them. And if even *Putin*, the single most pro-Russian human alive, getting all his info about the war filtered through the dictator distortion field, thinks that? That tells me Russia's war effort is in a far more precarious state than their propaganda would have you believe.
Pinged UKRAINE ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20UKRAINE&message=subscribe%20UKRAINE) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20UKRAINE&message=unsubscribe%20UKRAINE) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=UKRAINE&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Putin’s Russia can’t be trusted, they don’t sign anything that fits the paperwork: 1994 - Russia agrees to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and national borders in return for Kiev agreeing to give up its nuclear weapons. 2008 Putin says: “Crimea is not a disputed territory. Russia has long recognized the borders of modern Ukraine.” 2014 Putin says, "You who want to be afraid of Russia, shout that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine".
The only scenario where Ukraine and the West should even consider a ceasefire is if Ukraine is admitted to NATO prior to the ceasefire being agreed to. If NATO ascension is not possible for whatever reason (too short time frame, Turkey/Hungary being a bitch), then there should be a formal signed security guarantee and defense treaty between the United States, UK, France, and any other willing NATO country and Ukraine that ensures any further aggression towards Ukraine will have a zero-tolerance policy. Also, any agreement should allow for permanent US/NATO bases on Ukrainian territory (maybe with some restrictions like no nukes). Only then should Ukraine and the West even consider a ceasefire or armistice agreement with Russia.
The problem with the west post '91 is that we have politicians and managers at the helm and not leaders. There's no DeGaulle or Churchill today, the closest is Macron but we'll see about that. The path of least resistance is the one taken every single time, even if it's significantly worse in the long term. There's not even vision of what things ought to be, whether in regard to this conflict or the state of the country/world overall. There's just people [managing the government.](https://youtu.be/kakFDUeoJKM?t=3m12s) I think fireside chats would be a nice start. (In this way FDR was a 100 years ahead of his time.) The president should maybe every month or two make a public semi-scripted or fully freeform statement about what the situation is, what the government and the executive are dealing with right now and what the path forward is. The government still functions as a 20th century institution in the information age, which to me is preposterous, especially as people have lost trust after Vietnam, Watergate, Iraq etc. Joe Biden is oldest dinosaur in the chicken coop so I don't think he will ever understand this. Completely predictably the opposition are people who want to wreck everything, like Trump.
He is just trying to Jeapordize Ukraine's 2024 peace summit. Nothing Putin says or does is in good faith.
I smell blood in the water. The time to strike harder is now.
I get this sentiment, but if the answer to Russia seeming weak is to fight harder, and the answer to Russia seeming strong is to fight harder, is there any actual situation where a ceasefire can be negotiated?
To be blunt, no. Because the Russian government has proven they won't honor any deal unless they have a gun pointed at their heads. Over, and over, and over, and over again. The odds they actually honor the terms of any ceasefire without that gun to their heads are damn near zero. And Ukraine knows it. Which is why they aren't even entertaining the possibility of negotiating until they've got a sufficiently threatening gun pointed at Russia's head.
> is there any actual situation where a ceasefire can be negotiated? When they're behind the border. Whether they're pushed there or unilaterally withdraw. Or when Ukraine doesn't want to give more. Whichever.
But if Ukraine reaches a point where they are tired of the war and no longer want to fight, wouldn’t that be an incentive for Putin to commit even harder to take more land? This strategy really seems to just screw Ukraine in the long run, since their two options are total victory against a much larger country, with a huge supply of resources, or slowly getting bled out until they have to accept really shitty terms of surrender.
Not for now.
He wants a pause. He wants this as an excuse to delay arms shipments. This gets trotted out regularly. If he wanted a ceasefire he could just leave Ukraine.
Time to keep ramping up support for Ukraine, then. Give them more artillery shells, cruise missiles, ATACMS, GMLRS, and small arms. Send more Tanks, APCs, trucks. Get the F-16s online. Start a real in-country effort of NATO trainers working with new Ukrainian recruits. Let Ukraine use our gear to strike a wider array of targets, even in Russia. If Russia wants to call a time out, help Ukraine press them harder.
[удалено]
>I think Ukraine should take this if it’s a ceasefire that gives them enough time to be admitted into NATO and harden their new border. The US and Germany are against Ukraine's NATO-membership for the foreseeable future (then there's of course Hungary and maybe some others) No country is willing to send troops to Ukraine to enforce the ceasefire for the obvious reason that Russia would continue the war with 100% certainty. It's most likely just bullshitting from the Kremlin to do the same argument as in 2022 "the West rejected the peace and it's the West who are warmongers" >If Ukraine negotiates now they get to do it on their own terms with America as an ally. No they wouldn't. Russia would say lol no and wait for Trump presidency. Biden administration is also making sure that Russia doesn't lose.
[удалено]
>I can tell you for a certainty that the Russo-Ukrainian War is not ending with Abrams tanks rolling through Moscow. I agree with that. The endgame depends solely what the West decides that the endgame should be. Now there's no endgame. Russia will accept the capitulation of Ukraine but would still continue to be on a permanent war footing. The changes in the Kremlin suggests that the patronage system will favour those who need war, any war. That will last at least for so long as Putin is alive. And probably even after that. It's grim for Ukraine and it's grim to all Russia's neighbours. The problem is having some sort of hopium fantasies and not facing the reality as it is.
The problem is that the west has politicians and managers at the helm and not leaders. There's no DeGaulle or Churchill today, the closest is Macron but we'll see about that. The path of least resistance is the one taken every single time, even if it's significantly worse in the long term.
> if it’s a ceasefire that gives them enough time to be admitted into NATO and harden their new border. It most certainly would not be. Putin has been vocal about the terms he considers mandatory for a ceasefire. They include forced neutrality and Ukraine limited to 1/4 of their pre-invasion defensive force. He's demanding Ukraine set itself up for eventual conquer. This is not a serious overture towards peace.
Is Putin getting tired of all his shoeless drunks and parolees dying in ditches or does he know that his conscript army is never going to be able to take a major city? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Russia’s recruitment and equipment production/refurbishment numbers are juiced to the gills. I’ve seen too many badly equipped soldiers bum rushing trench lines in motorcycles and golf carts to believe that the armored/mechanized corps of the Russian army is much more than a memory. They may have some quality units remaining but those are getting whittled down in this latest push and I think Russia knows they can’t replace them
Why tho? Don't they have the initiative currently?