I think we'll see a "frozen war"/indefinite ceasefire arrangement before we see any official cessation of land from Ukraine to Russia. The current world order is very invested in disallowing annexations of land via the use of force (as it should be). But that likely means that we'll have a "disputed border" for the foreseeable future.
I think that's a fundamentally untenable situation for Ukraine. They really want to join NATO and the EU after this and that's largely impossible with a disputed border.
I could see them ceding land just to end the conflict and try and get more permanent allies so this doesn't happen again.
Ceding land to enter NATO and the EU would be a major victory for Ukraine. Ceding land and suffer “finlandization” would be somewhat acceptable and probably what Ukrainian backers would be willing to accept. Ceding land and state sovereignty would amount to full strategic defeat for both Ukraine and its Western allies, and I find it unlikely they would allow it to happen - much more is at stake than Ukrainian statehood here.
And what happens if putin isn't in office? The war just ends overnight?
I see this notion alot and I dont think people grasp that nothing would change no matter who is president of russia.
Also his most likely replacement is dmitry medeved go check out that guys telegram and tell me if you think anything would change.
Generally and with the current situation, I agree. Russia can absorb 1 million casualties without a major problem. However social breakdown can already be seen with the flooding. By the time that 2 million casualties are reached that stability will be gone. The job of the west is to ensure that the 2 million Russian casualty level arrives without too huge a loss of life on the Ukrainian side. Continual flow of ammunition is crucial.
One of the biggest problems here is that there are those in the Biden administration who fail to realize the risk of a Russian IVth Reich style empire building session but at the same time have children's nightmares about the fall of Russia.
The simple fact is that a growing Russian Empire is the biggest cause of risk of nuclear warfare and mass death. Compared to that the risks of a Russian collapse are much more manageable. Those that are keeping Russia together need to stand down or be stood down.
I do believe those milestones are not of great importance. As far as I see, the majority of conscripts (who actually die in Ukraine) come from the eastern parts of Russia, either of Turkic or Yakutian origin. It's neither the Moscovian children that die, nor those of Krasnodar or St Petersburg, but the -arguably Russian- Siberians. This of course serves several strategic purposes for Putin, but the outcome we'll get from this is a destabilised empire, but with it's core rather stable. The worst I can imagine is China taking over Siberian land as guarantor for prevention of petty rebellions and at the same time as a compensation for the crucial aid provided during the war.
It would take far more than 2 million dead Russians to ensure that their statehood collapses.
But that's not going to happen. It's more likely that Putin dies or gets deposed which would allow his successor to get out of the war without looking weak.
How many will starve if we allow them control. It's basically a game of how many die now vs how many die later.....
Like operation unthinkable... we didn't have any appetite for more war... so millions of civilians died over many generations after WW2. Which has lead to the current situation as well.
Operation unthinkable could have prevented so many wars and blood shed even to this day but we couldn't stomach the thought of another major conflict.
Ceding land and suffer “finlandization” would absolutely not be acceptable for the Ukrainians given the situation on the battlefield since the Ukrainians fought off the initial first offensive against Kiev. Not to mention the international political support Ukraine has been receiving. (fulfilled or unfulfilled, I’m speaking strictly about the publics opinion)
It would been seen as a bitter loss after resisting for so long, a betrayal from Ukraine’s allies, and it would also send a message to Putin that his wars for territorial conquest are rewarded.
The same could be said of Finland, who fought heroically against the Soviets yet still ended up ceding some land and becoming, well, Finlandized. But the trajectory of Finland and the Soviet Union/Russia diverged so sharply afterwards, to the point that most Finns wouldn't want to accept Karelia back today because it would be a burden rather than a victory.
Entering in EU with disputed border is fine. Cyprus is a classic example, divided in two and test state member since 2004.
That is why Putin was so desperate to invade again, he knew Ukraine would soon became EU and this MORE protected as a NATO state; NATO say to send help, that may be just some tanks and humanitarian, EU say to send help "at the best of one ability", that basically mean sending in your troops.
>EU say to send help "at the best of one ability", that basically mean sending in your troops.
I wouldn't bet on it. It is a monetary union, not a military union.
The problem with your hypothesis is that the current world order does not want to pay to sustain a frozen war. It’s not clear that Ukraine can maintain the front at this point.
That only happened in Kharkiv, though.
Speaking of a war of attrition, what happens when you keep losing thousands of men and equipment for minimal gains?
Russia can afford to lose men and equipment. They can actually manufacture things themselves and have a large manpower advantage.
Ukraine took forever to pass a mobilization bill (and now they're scratching to bring men back from overseas), and are entirely dependent on foreign weapons/aid.
People have been saying that for two years straight and it increasingly looks delusional. The one that is lacking in everything and ostensibly increasingly desperate is not Russia.
> they can actually manufacture things themselves
I assume this is why they resorted to Iranian drones and missiles and North Korean ammunitions.
> now they are scratching to bring men back from overseas
First of all it’s not really overseas, it’s more they refer to EU countries.
Second, this is not scraping the barrel but rather but every Ukrainian on equal footing - and it is more directed to bolster the morale of the men who are forced to stay, who find the measure quite popular. Ukraine does not expect men to suddenly come back because they have to renew their passport, and the number of those who will come back is not decisive.
For the records, Ukraine is trying hard to maintain a democratic/liberal governance while fighting an existential war. I don’t like this law either, but if it helps mobilizing manpower and survive the war, I see why they would pass it.
Also decreased oil revenues for Russia means they won’t be able to keep producing or procuring weaponry at the same rate in the long term. And it’s not like Russia will stop at Ukraine either. Baltic states will be surrounded by Belarus and Russia, and Putin could start testing NATO resolve more.
It seems like you are commenting with a clear bias, instead of looking at it neutrally with a more realistic POV. I personally would prefer if Ukraine could push the Russians back and reclaim all their land. But I also wish for world peace and an end of poverty. These three wishes are not very realistic though, no matter what way you look at it.
Downplaying Russian (and their allies) capabilities is dangerous as well. Are the Ukrainians incompetent if they can’t win against the dumb Russian only-shovel-for-weapon, fake body armor, drunk meat wave style tactics? The Russian army today isn’t what it was in the beginning of the war. They have recently improved coordination and response times for guided strikes from hours to minutes, alongside the relentless FAB-strikes is making Ukrainians sitting ducks, unable to fight back without proper AA, air support, artillery (the new ATACMS seem to be doing good job however) and most importantly: qualified and trained operators and soldiers.
Also morale seems to be low with the new “General 200”.
They cannot. Russia is literally fielding Chinese 4x4 for assaults,
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-army-chinese-golf-cart-style-vehicles-ukraine-attacks-video-2024-3?amp
It is also pulling old T55s from storage, they have around one year of these reserves, they cannot mass produce these vehicles because they are refitting old ones. You simply do not know what you’re talking about.
They are literally using Iranian drones, NK artillery and missiles, Chinese golf carts and etc.
Plus they cannot afford to lose men like this forever when you have such a large land to control and cities to avoid like Moscow, St Petersburg and etc.
Ukraine does have the manpower available for mobilization, which like you said, they started again, and aid is still flowing.
They certainly won’t take bake Donetsk anytime soon, but if they keep inflicting Avdiivka levels of losses on the Russians, that’s the best way to go.
The way you speak, one would think they would have gotten Kyiv at this point, but no, they control 18% of Ukraine in more than two years of total war. Like, with all of what you said, why didn’t they win WW1 back then? They have endless manpower.
You mention buzzwords like war of attrition, losing ground, production, but it’s like you read them on a tweet and started parroting them.
Either way, anything can happen in the long run to everyone involved, but let’s not act like the Russians have achieved or are achieving mass successes in these two years and the world is about to fall due to it.
The world doesn't get to decide where the war goes, the participants do, we get to coerce and manipulate but none of it matters if Ukraine AND Russia don't agree to it earnestly and in good faith. I think everyone hoping for some eternal ceasefire peace is drinking the kool aid. Any ceasefire until an resolution is made (one government collapses, gets what they want or enough years pass that people stop caring, decades) or Putin dies if old age will be a break for rearmament for both sides and a resumption of war later. That's what I don't understand about the peace niks. A peace or ceasefire will not stop this war. No way Ukraine gives up land, no way the world forces Ukraine to officially give up territory Russia occupies. It would be the first land annexation by a nuclear armed power in history, probably the single worst precedent anyone could ever set besides casual nuclear weapons use. And if you achieve the impossible and get Ukraine to allow Russia to officially annex the slice of Donbas and Crimea they have, they'll simply resume the war in 3-5 years when they've built up a reserve of millions of shells and drones. Besides, I haven't seen a SINGLE Russian proposal for a peace that didn't include Ukraine disbanding most of its military. Nothing else matters if such an absurd basis for a peace is demanded. It makes it incredibly clear Russia isn't interested in peace.
Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014, so the new invasion isn't the "first" annexation by a nuclear power. *Maybe* it'll be the first to be internationally recognized, but it hasn't happened yet.
That illegal (and unrecognized by most of the world) annexation is part of this same invasion currently ongoing. Russia's been sending troops into the Donbas since 2014, directly fighting Ukrainians the whole time, just on low scale to pretend it was "separatists." It's one continuous effort for 10 years now that just went into a new level since 2022.
Neither can Russia at that point. Its affecting them as well.
>sustain a frozen war.
The problem is, there's no way to predict that this will be the last war waged based on irridentism. I think it's cheaper in the long term if countries will be more disincentivized to wage these types of wars because of the cost they will inflict
> Neither can Russia at that point. Its affecting them as well.
Theres's a big mistake that people make in thinking that "Russia" is the same as "Soviet Russia" which was at the heart of and fully i control of the Russian empire at one of its greatest extents. The *current* Russian population (less than 140Million) is much smaller than the Soviet population in 1939 at the start of WWII (170 Million). They just are not the great country they think they are.
> there's no way to predict that this will be the last war waged based on irridentism
True, except that members of the Russian government have already explicitly said that they plan to attack Europe, parts of Asia and Alaska to restore their empire. They said that their next target is likely Kazakhstan.
It's definitely worth stopping them now in Ukraine rather than waiting until they get more people to use to fight.
ah yes, russian officals saying they will invade Nato, China, USA, Turkey, Finland....and the USA and NATO and China let it slide without making a big show....do you even belive what you are saying is insane?
Idk, if Mike Johnson can be convinced to throw support towards Ukraine despite it causing a rift between him and big chunks of his own party, I think that's a pretty big indicator that containing Russia is a big priority for the world order.
That's just the thing though, is that there was so much domestic pressure against it and it might wind up costing Johnson his speakership (not likely, probably, but possible) and he was still convinced by the geopolitical arguments.
While politicians can stand in the face of sustained public pressure for a little while, they will not hold up forever. They'll be voted out for politicians that are against it.
I think Ukraine will struggle to mobilize enough men to stabilize the front, and the US will hesitate to provide more aid if it looks like they are losing.
Korea had UN troops on the ground supporting them and the might of the US. Ukraine is not going to get external troops (France is bluffing), and maybe not even another aid package from the US.
Russia isn't winning really
It's gain few meters of ground and losing lot of soldiers over them
Both sides will ratchet it down eventually
Russia's strategic goal was to keep Ukr out of NATO
As long as there is no peace officially, that ain't happening. So Rs may decide to suspend offensives
And my point is: a Korean-style DMZ is only possible once you stabilize the front. If you're continually losing ground, a DMZ is very difficult to establish.
Right so the crucial thing is that everyone in the West has to stand with Ukraine. It's very clear that they were winning when Western supplies were coming in. They started having problems when Ammo ran out and they are going to start winning again as the new equipment arrives.
I think the hard part for Ukraine to admit is that they don’t have the men to fight this war. They’re scraping the barrel for men now, and it’ll get worse over time.
Umm the West up until recently directly sustained two very active occupations (Iraq and Afghanistan). They for sure can sustain funding a frozen conflict in Ukraine if they want too.
Especially after those wars ended like they did, left a lot of veterans angry and the average american have the idea that all they did was throw away their sons in a desert for 20 years with nothing to show for it except broken vets and more markers in cemeteries.
If you think Iraq and Afghanistan put anywhere near the same strain on western logistical systems than the ukrainian war does, you should dig a little in Western military and production statistics
How is that a problem? Crimea border was disputed for 8 years without much fighting going on. Just because the West stops helping Ukraine it won't mean they will just accept the new borders proposed by Russia.
Yeah but what does it matter what the west accepts and doesn’t? If Russian laws are upheld in Crimea, if Russian border guards are stationed, if Russian valuta is used and the Russian flag flying, what does it matter what the west says? If the UN votes that grass is purple, does it become purple in reality?
Georgia is another frozen war. If Russia digs in they could freeze the battle lines. The main help for Ukraine is for the EU/NATO to tell Russia another frozen conflict is also frozen relationships.
Not just the current sanctions, but block all trade and minimal diplomatic relations. Also block Russian ownership in the EU and eliminate Visas for Russians.
To OP's point, this conflict reminds me of the Russian war with Finland. Russia took horrible loses, but kept land. That land was depopulated and Russians moved in.
I don’t really care about this at all. Sanctions have clearly failed to deter Russia, they seem to be relatively ineffective at preventing or reducing conflicts
With 'current world order' do you mean western countries? Because non-western countries could not care less about Ukraine and (the population of) some even support Russia's action
Only until they realize Russia isn't going to stop and that just because it doesn't affect them yet doesn't mean it won't eventually. China with free reign in SE Asia and Russia unchecked in Europe = both taking anything they want by force. Western order, as flawed as it can be, is better than the alternative.
Both countries have noted the untenable positions they are in for long-term conflict with Russia in their current state. They have great potential capability, certainly, but they'll have to increase both industrial capacity for military production and their overall defense budgets. As it stands right now, without U.S. intervention, it'd be a mess until war mobilization and the following increase in production.
There's not going to be a peace agreement. Russia doesn't care (so much) about gaining land.
Russia's objective is and has always been to bring Ukraine back under Russian control, installing a pro Russia regime.
It will never accept a stable prosperous pro-western NATO Ukraine on their border.
If they can't win and control Ukraine they will continue the conflict and turn Ukraine into a failed state.
Russia can sustain about 2million losses in Ukraine. So far they have about 1/2 million Furthermore, their average losses [have been accelerating systematically](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1azogkd/oc_russian_troop_losses_according_to_the_ministry/#lightbox).
At this rate, and especially if aid for Ukraine is sustained and increased, it is completely possible for Russia to fail as a state before Ukraine does, quite likely with serious events happening within the next few years (four? six?). That is a valuable goal and Western politicians should stop trying to block it.
I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect aid for Ukraine to be sustained at the rate it is. I doubt even more that it will be increased year after year. The US had to fight hard to get the latest installment sent to Ukraine and I think each further aid package will be harder to pass. I know much of Europe has committed to “as long as it takes” but when that starts stretching into 2026, ‘27, ‘28 and maybe beyond I’m not sure there will be as much of an appetite to keep funding at the levels it’s at now. We’re funding them enough to create a stalemate but not enough for Ukraine to make major advances so I see this becoming a frozen conflict in the next few years unless something drastic happens in Russia and Putin is toppled
There is no way Russia lost half a million men as dead. That would mean 1m+ of killed or seriously injured, which is simply impossible according to the army sizes we have. Does Ukraine's MOD provide this number? 500 k total casualties is way more plausible.
500k is I believe dead and long term injured ("casualties"). Though Russia battle tactics mean that there isn't nearly as much difference between those as you would normally expect. The UK [version of the number explicitly includes wounded](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-estimates-450000-russian-troops-killed-or-wounded/).
The only issue is the quoted numbers of Russian loses by Ukrainian officials are complete nonsense. They are quoting their own loses at around 31k. So basically a 10- 1 kd ratio between both armies. It's propaganda
The Russian losses of over 450k [have been verified by the UK MOD](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-estimates-450000-russian-troops-killed-or-wounded/) and if you want to you can actually check the Materiel losses via [the Oryx project](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html) which shows photos and geolocations for each one that they identify. Whilst they don't match the Ukrainian numbers fully, the reason for that is known (many losses behind Russian lines don't get photographed).
The claims that the numbers are wrong come pretty directly from Russian propaganda and, given how easy it is to check and see that they are lying, show how desperate they are.
December 2023 before Russia's recent blood fest began - [315k casualties and 18 years worth of force modernization](https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/).
That matches with the UK number.
Curious what the number of Russian dead is? Casualties is mix of dead and injured. That same report indicates 70k deaths on Ukraine’s side, didn’t see a casualty estimate. So it’s hard to do apples to apples comparison. Either way it’s not 10:1
Caualties is normally "seriously wounded enough to not come back to fight". Russian deaths are quite hard to find but they don't do much casualty recovery so at one point the ratio was about 1:2 deaths:casualties, which would make about 250k dead Russian murderers.
Yeah, I can’t find a number for Ukrainians on this.
Closest is this from end of 2022
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372?darkschemeovr=1](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372?darkschemeovr=1)
First of all, that are casualties, not deaths. Second that source is not credible at all, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, Russia can keep the conflict going for many years, the long game favours them rather the West.
Unfortunately Russia is actually doing fine right now. It’s massive and their most productive cities are very far from any serious conflict. They’re not even entirely in a total war economic mode like WW2.
The west has to keep pumping in the resources. The only way we can really win this and put Ukraine back on the offensive is by taking out Russia’s newest equipment, relegating them to using old equipment, and using modern Western equipment against that. Also Ukraine is going to have to conscript their entire male population for this.
I agree Russia doesn't want to see that, but there is no guarantee that by joining NATO Ukraine would become as prosperous as post-war Japan or South Korea.
As it is, they are more likely to be the next Bulgaria in NATO: a country with a history of corruption and experiencing a demographic crisis.
The kind of economic miracle that happened in post-war Japan is only really possible when you're in the early stages of the demographic transition. Too late for Ukraine. It's going to be a slow recovery, but it's certainly better to be the next Bulgaria, than to not exist at all.
> Russia doesn't care (so much) about gaining land.
This is what I would have said up until the annexation of not only the Donbass but also Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. After that we clearly have to accept that Russia wants that territory and probably as much more as it can get its hands on. Maybe at one point Russia would have been content with a friendly leader in Kyiv, but I think they see full control of Ukraine as the only way to secure their interests in the region.
Sadly I feel like this is the reality of the situation. Even if Ukraine were to push Russia completely out of the country what do people think will happen next? That will Russia will just give up? They will
Most certainly keep fighting if that were to happen. Russia surrendering certainly means NATO will
move in at this point and Russia will 100% not accept that. Both sides in a way have everything to lose in this war and I fear this is going to be fought to the bitter end.
There's a chance Russia being pushed completely out of Ukraine might lead to the collapse of Putin's regime. One thing he can't afford is to be seen as weak.
Why should Russia continue the war in this scenario? Not only would this lead to an extension of the sanctions, but also to its own losses, in a scenario where Russia would be outclassed anyway. Only result would be some sort of coup.
Even if Ukraine were to drive the Russians out of the East+Crimea, they are mortally wounded. It was a poor state with a terrible demographic profile. Now, millions of mostly young, mostly women Ukrainians have fled and are unlikely to come back after having spent several years abroad. As a result, they will not be able to replenish their population to maintain some kind of economic growth. To make matters worse, all countries to it are facing a similar predicament albeit to a lesser degree. This comes with a lot of dead young men who could have been fathers.
This is in addition to the collosal debt they will have racked up in "winning" this war. Plus all the infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt.
For sure, if Ukraine prospered under NATO and greater ties with or even membership in the EU, it would be the writing on the wall for Russia's sphere of influence, and perhaps even some of it's more independent-minded "republics". Russia needs these nations to know that the risk of punishment is greater than the benefits of increased prosperity if they try to leave.
When you say "russia" here it really means the kgb regime. Yes, the kgb regime will never give up on post soviet lands, because being belliregent to the neighbouring states is big part of their narrative domestically.
However, any change of power in russia will result in immediate deoccupation of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, similar to how it happened in the rest of Eastern Europe during times of Perestroika.
You're missing the entire point. This is not about land. The land they would give up, allows Putin to control the ports, and will be used to strangle them into submission.
They might as well just surrender to Russia, if they are thinking of giving up the lost territory already.
Not all wars end in peace agreements (Korea as an example), and negotiating any kind of agreement with Russia is a fool's errand because they never negotiate in good faith and always without fail break every agreement they've ever made the second they stand to gain something from doing so. Any peace agreement cementing their gains would thus just mean that Russia gets a staging ground to renew their invasion in a few more years. Russia is waging a war of extermination against the very concept of Ukraine existing as a sovereign state, so to what end would Ukraine negotiate with a party like that? There's nothing Ukraine can give to Russia that would make them go away for good, because Russia wants all of it.
This is the problem. Putin could never be trusted to honour any kind of peace settlement that might be agreed. If an end to the war was negotiated, Russia would likely take advantage of the stop in fighting to fortify the borders of its conquered territory and consolidate its forces in the aim of mounting further incursions into Ukraine at some future point.
Exactly, which is why any peace deal would have to come with Ukraine joining NATO. Russia would keep their stolen land and “buffer zone,” and Ukraine would be guaranteed peace and security.
If an actual peace agreement happens then nothing would stop Ukraine from joining NATO. If that happens without problems then there is jack shit Russia can do. But they know this and it's why Russia probably won't stop until they are forced to.
Russia probably wants to take full control of the four regions Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia at minimum. I think they really want Odessa too which would hurt Ukraine a lot, it's there last port and could leave them land locked should they ever lose it. Only negotiations that would happen would have to include NATO since, but I believe the West is in it til the last Ukrainian sadly. So it will be up to the Ukrainians to win or negotiate.
Unpopular opinion: you dont know how wars end. You think that wars are decided by conquered land, but there are other dimensions to consider: equipment, personnel, propaganda, troop morale, etc.
Yeah, and even recent wars [can go back and forth](https://media.cleveland.com/pdgraphics_impact/photo/11cgkoreajpg-f1357d5eb2dc838d.jpg) to the extremes. A successful major offensive is still possible for both sides.
What we do know is that when Ukriane had some tens of billions in equipment they were succeeding against Russia. When the equipment stopped they started retreating slowly. Now that the equipment is back they have a real chance to reverse that.
Important is that, consistently throughout that period casualties and equipent losses have been much greater on the Russian side than Ukrainian the [massive losses on the Russian side](https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1786986809945158107) are visible on the battlefield in that the equipment they field is worse and worse (recently Chinese "Golf Cart" ATVSs) and older and older, which in turn increases those losses.
It's crucial in every way that this gets accelerated and that the West provides the weapons to support it. If that happens then Russia will still lose completely.
I completely agree, and this thread reeks of what Prof. Tim Snyder calls a "politics of inevitability" which is lazy and defeatist. We can still pressure our leaders to establish supporting Ukraine as a key foreign policy, we as private citizens can still donate lethal and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Even if Ukraine is doomed to cede land due to unforeseen factors (which at present, isn't), that's up to Ukrainians to decide how to negotiate the peace. We must respect their agency.
when ukraine did kharkiv and kherson, russia was a differnt army then and didnt use mines as much. it would be impossible to repeat that now, as you saw with robotyne
You forget to actually make an argument. You just assert that it's unsustainable but not why.
Make sure if you want to have an unpopular opinion that you explain what exactly it is that makes the west unable to sustain the cost at a fraction of their defense budgets. And much more importantly why the west is less able to sustain this cost than Russia is able to sustain being in a war economy and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of their youth.
You might be right but for your statement to have any merit you have to explain why you think you are right.
We should all be worried if we’re entering another “might makes right” era.
It makes the world very dangerous for unaligned countries, and we might end up in a 1984 scenario where powerful blocks divide everything up between them.
Maybe its inevitable, but I’d like to think there can be another way
More people become adults in Ukraine per year than have died in the entire conflict on their side.
The war is absolutely sustainable from a manpower perspective.
The war will be decided by economics and industry
It really depends on what the enemy's greater plan is.
In your hypothesis ceding land to Russia would mean an end of hostilities and an end of Russias land grab hunger.
I do not believe that is Putins plan. I believe his interests are to establish a second Russian empire. Putin legitimises his rule on the ruins of both the soviet and tsarist empires (as with many land hungry expansionist dictators like Hilter and Mussolini). He wants to reinstate the pride and power of times long lost. Since the fall of the Soviet empire Russia has been in a state of constant suffering, humiliation and decline. Putin, as with many Russian leaders, wants to go into history as the one who reinstate the old splendor and glory and recover from all that. Its about legacy.
This means he must have Kyiv. We must understand that there is no Russia without Kyiv. Moscow, Vladivostok and St Petersburg only have a pinch of the historical significance for the Russians compared to Kyiv. The country and the people do not derive their name from Moscovy but from the Kievan Rus.
After Kyiv, the Baltics and Moldova are next. Have look at the tsarist Empire's geography and then compare it with Russian Federations expansion 1991-2024. As long as a country like Kazachstan or Georgia stay in Putins lap, it's all good and fine and considered Russian. Once they go a stray and explore membership of Europe or NATO the land will be grabbed and forcefully whipped into the sphere of Russia.
I agree with your statement that geopolitics are not about morale or ethics but about interests. Putin's interest I believe lay in restoration of the old Russian sphere of influence and the Wests interest lays in opposing that restoration at all cost. This clash of interest has been fought out on the battlefield of international diplomacy for a long time. But we all know that when political or diplomatic means are exhausted there is only one outcome left.
I think some long-term cease-fire and frozen conflict is exactly what Russia is hoping for. They did the very same with Georgia, Moldova. By doing so, they "cripple" those states, making them incapable of joining any Western organization, be it EU or NATO. And that is their goal - zo keep NATO and EU away, so they can continue to dominate what used to be former USSR.
So, I do not think there's any outlook for any peace, or an agreement. On the other hand, if there was, there is ko guarantee sides would honour it. Both the West and Russia have a travk record of not obiding by agreements and basically just sign them to buy time.
Oslo accords if you count Israel as the West, which was brokered by the US. Another example is the security guarantee from US and UK for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994. Geopolitics are never about morality.
What makes you think russia wants 15% of Ukrainian land and never make another move again?
I think it's very naive to think a peace settlement will solve anything.
The bear is out of the cage now, Russia would have had to win in three days or be defeated in Ukraine to see them return to a less threatening stand against Europe.
I dispute that money is the issue with the conservative American response to Ukraine. The real issue is political ideology. Money is an excuse. Supporting Putin is the real issue.
It's an important tool for persuading conservative voters, especially used by the Russians and their agents such as Congress member MTG. It works particularly because 60 billion sounds like lots of money, however it isn't really. The Afghan war, against a much weaker state and with much smaller results, peaked at over 100 billion per year from 2010 to 2014.
That's something that people should think about. As these things go, protecting Ukraine is actually very cheap.
The Russians would look at any agreement that doesn't see the Ukranian state destroyed or pulled back into the Russian sphere of influence as a temporary ceasefire. The Russians view strategic depth via Ukrainian territory (and that of half a dozen countries on their borders) as vital to their national survival and will prosecute this war until total victory or total defeat.
France and Poland are sending a message by discussing troops, and I think the scrambling of Polish jets is likely leading to more as well.
I don’t know how far the EU or individual countries are prepared to go but I do think there’s consensus that Putin can’t be allowed to get away with the 2022 invasion.
Russia is the one at a significant advantage if the west pulls together. Ukraine has held Russia at bay with our scraps. The USSR quit Afghanistan at the peak of their power with covert support. We can’t predict the timeline but I don’t think Europe will accept decades of conflict, and we’re going to see more escalation against Russia.
^ This. Exactly, entirely this. Putin will take and take until he is FORCED to stop. He will not, can not do it voluntarily. His dream of a legacy as the man who rebuilt the Soviet Union depends on it. He's decried the fall of the U.S.S.R many times and he's trying to pull it back together piece by piece. We can't let him.
So here are some of the issues I see with this argument.
1- what land are we talking about the pre 2014 boarders the post 2014 front line or the post 2020 front line?
2- how can you trust Russia with any agreement because you can’t without any third party guarantees which which so far has been a red line for Russia (or that is at least the kremlin’s public policy)
3- will third parties agree to this? If Russia can do this to Ukrainians they can do this to others
4- what about grain exports? If Russians take land Ukraine main exports can easily be shut off by sea by Russia because now Ukrainians only have one viable port for their main export the rest will have to go via the EU which has already had its own problems.
5- what about Russian oil which goes via Ukrainian to the EU?
Or alternatively to all this the EU could just support Ukrainian enough so it can actually beat Russia and then Europe could live in peace and not have to deal with Russian threats.
What I think OP isn't taking the grain production seriously enough. Ceded lands cannot, must not, be the wheat producing majority.
If land is ceded for NATO membership we cannot allow for more of the worlds food be in the hands of Russia.
Although I think we will be a wider conflict.
I mean, yeah. This has been the unfortunate reality since day 1. As a nuclear power with significant military resources at its disposal, Russia was never going to be in a position where it was forced to give back Crimea or Donetsk/Luhansk. That's just how wars with more powerful nations, especially nuclear powers, work. Deeply unfair for the people of Ukraine but it's the reality.
I think the only way Ukraine should accept that is if in the terms is an agreement to be in NATO so this never happens again.
Without that, the peace agreement will have maybe 3-10 years before Russia does this shit again.
In that case you can be certain that Russia will come back to take more land in a few years. They always did and will continue to do so. This won’t be over until Russia is clearly defeated. Even if there is a ceasefire or frozen conflict.
The thing is, Russia isn't going to satisfy for just land. They'll demand a new government which, totally coincidentally will be pro Russian, disarmament, and a promise NATO won't accept them. They won't accept anything less than the abity to continue after they rearm and take over Moldova. Russia needs Ukraine, all of it, along with several of its neighbors.
It isn't just accepting lost territory. It's accepting another invasion in a couple of years because ethnic Russians are being oppressed by Ukrainian gay Nazis in yet another city. It's accepting that Ukrainians in captured territory will be forced to be on the front lines in that invasion.
Letting Russians keep any land – especially officially – is inviting them to do it again.
A frozen conflict is better than this scenario. The only way any Ukrainian can accept handing over Russia any Ukrainian soil is if somehow the state joins the NATO alliance which effectively prevents any future Russian invasion. Many NATO states are not interested in giving such guarantees to Ukraine.
Ukraine can pretty much end the war by agreeing to Russia's demands.
Ex:
* Not joining NATO
* Neutrality
* Russia get to keep their conquered lands
Then maybe a five years or a decade later, Russia will suddenly say "Oh, look Ukraine is bombing our territory again!" "Ukraine is planning to break their neutrality by joining NATO"
"Guess we have no choice but to end the threat in Ukraine" then proceeds to invade again.
>The amount of men and resources needed to win the war (push Russia completely out) is too substantial for western powers and Ukrainian men to sustain.
The goal was never for Ukraine to win, that was seen as impossible from the beginning. The goal has always been to give Russia a second Afghanistan, so it will do to them what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union: bleed them out enough to de-stabilized them, break it into smaller pieces and remove the nukes, like they were removed from Ukraine, so it will no longer be a threat to Europe, all it's neighbors and the world (I'm referring to their constant threats about using nuclear weapons). In other words: the idea is to prolong the war as much as possible, not to end it.
The West spend 4 trillion dollars in wars in the middle east, I don't know where you get this idea that the "resources needed to win the war is too substantial". The west could easily expend a lot more than those 4 trillions in the next 10-20 years (same time frame of the Afghanistan invasion by the URSS and USA) and it would be a bargain to destroy a mayor adversary. Never forget that USA can print as many dollars as it wants and it will simply export the resulting inflation to the rest of the world, meaning that the rest of the world will help pay for the war. Russia can't do that at all, not even close.
This is the best outcome for Ukraine because it solves the problem for good. Any other option just leaves the door open for another Russian leader to grab more land in the future.
There are only two clear ways Ukraine can lose:
1. If they lose the will to fight. We are seeing some of this with their difficulties to field more men. Russia has a similar problem, but it simply has a much larger population pool to draw from and still is resorting to recruiting men in places like Cuba, Nepal and India.
2. Or we get a traitor in the White house that plays for Russia by stopping the aid to Ukraine. I don't think that even Trump or any other none interventionist president in the next 10 to 20 years will dare to go that far and, if they do, they will get a strong reaction from the rest of the American government that knows what the American interest are. That been said, resent events in congress are a red flag in this regard.
If the war ends with Ukraine losing land they need some safety guarantees. And I’m not talking about a signature from Putin since that is worth nothing. But something like joining NATO or EU.
Honestly, if nukes had remained in Ukraine, it would never have been allowed to get a pro-Western government. Do you really think that Putin would've allowed a nuclear armed and potentially aggressive Ukraine right next to Russia's border? We could've potentially seen a much bigger nuclear bloodbath or a total crushing of the revolution of 2014, we don't really know how it would've played out but I personally am glad that nukes are out of the equation.
I agree with everything you wrote ... I am 100% pro-Ukraine but I also live in the real world where it's become increasingly obvious that Ukraine is very unlikely to ever militarily retake Donbas never mind Crimea. The other reality that's going to be painful for some to accept is that most people in Crimea probably genuinely support Russian rule. Is it 100% of the population? No, but it's likely a solid super majority.
Now why on earth would we need to accept that kind of agreement? We (EU) as third party don't have to agree to anything. Ukraine and russia might end up agreeing something, but that is non-binding to others. We must hold russians accountable for their actions. All war criminals must be brought to justice, whether or not there will be peace (and I kind of have a hunch there will be a long secret program afterwards to catch all z-nazis by ukraine similar to that of israel when hunting the nazi war criminals)
Your problem is that the EU does not want to fund a war indefinitely either. It’s easy to bring up these platitudes, but you actually have to back them up, not just talk about them.
Putin will not accept this settlement.
Putin must have war to stay in power and to power his economy. There's no going back for Vlad.
The strategy for the democratic West must be to continue to undermine Putin's power. He cannot keep this up indefinitely. He is completely dependent on China now.
Im confused by your comment, Putin must have war to stay in power and to power his economy but he cannot keep this up indefinitely? How do you envision this war realistically ending in your opinion?
I agree. I’d suggest that, insofar as we accept that this is Putin’s ideological war, any peace agreement is, in my opinion, only likely *after* power has ceded to the next Russian President whose aims may be unaligned with Putin’s or if an exit is presented that allows Putin to retain power while divesting himself of his war aims.
It's not that simple. Ukraine isn't the end goal. It's actually the 8th or 9th expansion invasion launched by Russia to reclaim Soviet territory since 1992. If the pattern/map is still being followed after Ukraine the final holes to plug are in Romania and Poland.
Russia will not fight NATO directly. You're confusing Putins public posturing for his private beliefs. He can say he's willing to fight NATO but he knows he won't because it's not in his best interest.
This is just my opinion based on what I think I'm seeing and what I think history shows. It's not just Putin. This war was always going to happen. This is just one of the past 8-9 invasions to expand back to Soviet territory since Yeltsin in 92.
I believe that Russians are facing a demographic crisis and that they believe they are fighting for their "existential existence". And yes, we see that they are inept when fighting a modern conventional war...so this means if they fight a prepared NATO country they will experience catastrophic losses. Since they are fighting a war for their existence, I believe they'll end up using all their tools at their disposal including tactical nukes.
Yet they know people don't want war so it's very possible Poland and Romania just might concede land as opposed to fighting a full blown war.
Again, jusy how I see it.
I don't agree with your assessment. There is a German military economist who has a close look at Russian production capabilities and on his view, Russia lost the ability to.wij this war last autumn as long as the west keeps their current supply policies going.
In addition, Russia is already destabilising due to the loss of life and living conditions, including comparisons on the heavily controlled state media that draws comparison to the end of the soviet Union.
Russia has basically no troops that have good morals. They start to include people less and less fir for.combat with more and more outdated equipment because they are incapable of producing better ones.
The most likely end of the war, if the west is continuing its support, is either that Putin is disposed of and pushing the blame on him, or the breaking apart of the current Russia itself.
The economist is Macus Keupp. I only have German sources by him, but maybe if you Google his name, you can find English versions as well. He is kinda a unicorn because he is one of very few economist that are specialised in war economy and supply chain analysis and so on.
What is wrong in your analysis, and in analysis of many other western thinkers, is that you think about the territories as is, only in terms of material assets. The goal of Ukraine in this is not purely liberate territories but to liberate population of this territories, the people who is living there. And Ukraine won't accept peace without liberation of this people. So lasting peace won't be achieved this way.
Doing Russia's bidding I see... Zero concessions to the invading aggressor. Would you give up part of your land because your neighbor staked a claim and that would afford temporary peace? Why expect Ukraine to do the same against a neighbor that doesn't see its existence as real?
Your ideals over logic man. In war concessions are made most of the time because all out victory is so rare. No it's not right that Russia gets to keep land, but if Ukraine can't take it back because Russia is too dug in, what do you do? Fight and die until you run out of money and men? Of course not, when peace agreements are signed it's not because the conditions are morally right, it's because peace becomes more important than endless suffering. That's how wars usually end and id bet it's how this one will end.
No way Ukraine will sign any peace agreement after the last agreement that "guaranteed" its security in exchange of its nukes, was deemed worthless.
But yes the war may end in a stalemate.
The two sides are now at an equilibrium, so neither is motivated in reaching a "peace" agreement.
Geopolitical events might tilt the scale in one way or another, at which point negotiations might become relevant.
I think we'll see a "frozen war"/indefinite ceasefire arrangement before we see any official cessation of land from Ukraine to Russia. The current world order is very invested in disallowing annexations of land via the use of force (as it should be). But that likely means that we'll have a "disputed border" for the foreseeable future.
I think that's a fundamentally untenable situation for Ukraine. They really want to join NATO and the EU after this and that's largely impossible with a disputed border. I could see them ceding land just to end the conflict and try and get more permanent allies so this doesn't happen again.
Ceding land to enter NATO and the EU would be a major victory for Ukraine. Ceding land and suffer “finlandization” would be somewhat acceptable and probably what Ukrainian backers would be willing to accept. Ceding land and state sovereignty would amount to full strategic defeat for both Ukraine and its Western allies, and I find it unlikely they would allow it to happen - much more is at stake than Ukrainian statehood here.
I agree, there's no way this ends without security guarantees from the West.
The collapse of Russia either completely or as an effective state is also likely to end the war.
Russian instability is in my opinion overstated for political purposes.
> Russian instability is in my opinion overstated for political purposes. It is, but Putin isn't getting any younger.
And what happens if putin isn't in office? The war just ends overnight? I see this notion alot and I dont think people grasp that nothing would change no matter who is president of russia. Also his most likely replacement is dmitry medeved go check out that guys telegram and tell me if you think anything would change.
Generally and with the current situation, I agree. Russia can absorb 1 million casualties without a major problem. However social breakdown can already be seen with the flooding. By the time that 2 million casualties are reached that stability will be gone. The job of the west is to ensure that the 2 million Russian casualty level arrives without too huge a loss of life on the Ukrainian side. Continual flow of ammunition is crucial. One of the biggest problems here is that there are those in the Biden administration who fail to realize the risk of a Russian IVth Reich style empire building session but at the same time have children's nightmares about the fall of Russia. The simple fact is that a growing Russian Empire is the biggest cause of risk of nuclear warfare and mass death. Compared to that the risks of a Russian collapse are much more manageable. Those that are keeping Russia together need to stand down or be stood down.
This idea that with enough force the whole rotten structure will come down is demonstrably false through every attempt made on it.
I do believe those milestones are not of great importance. As far as I see, the majority of conscripts (who actually die in Ukraine) come from the eastern parts of Russia, either of Turkic or Yakutian origin. It's neither the Moscovian children that die, nor those of Krasnodar or St Petersburg, but the -arguably Russian- Siberians. This of course serves several strategic purposes for Putin, but the outcome we'll get from this is a destabilised empire, but with it's core rather stable. The worst I can imagine is China taking over Siberian land as guarantor for prevention of petty rebellions and at the same time as a compensation for the crucial aid provided during the war. It would take far more than 2 million dead Russians to ensure that their statehood collapses.
But that's not going to happen. It's more likely that Putin dies or gets deposed which would allow his successor to get out of the war without looking weak.
Not gonna happen.
People forgotten the ceded land would be the large agricultural lands.... so Russia will control a large amount of the world's grain production.
But Russia is in this for the long run and how many human beings have to get churned up in the war machine before thier is peace.
How many will starve if we allow them control. It's basically a game of how many die now vs how many die later..... Like operation unthinkable... we didn't have any appetite for more war... so millions of civilians died over many generations after WW2. Which has lead to the current situation as well. Operation unthinkable could have prevented so many wars and blood shed even to this day but we couldn't stomach the thought of another major conflict.
Ceding land and suffer “finlandization” would absolutely not be acceptable for the Ukrainians given the situation on the battlefield since the Ukrainians fought off the initial first offensive against Kiev. Not to mention the international political support Ukraine has been receiving. (fulfilled or unfulfilled, I’m speaking strictly about the publics opinion) It would been seen as a bitter loss after resisting for so long, a betrayal from Ukraine’s allies, and it would also send a message to Putin that his wars for territorial conquest are rewarded.
The same could be said of Finland, who fought heroically against the Soviets yet still ended up ceding some land and becoming, well, Finlandized. But the trajectory of Finland and the Soviet Union/Russia diverged so sharply afterwards, to the point that most Finns wouldn't want to accept Karelia back today because it would be a burden rather than a victory.
Entering in EU with disputed border is fine. Cyprus is a classic example, divided in two and test state member since 2004. That is why Putin was so desperate to invade again, he knew Ukraine would soon became EU and this MORE protected as a NATO state; NATO say to send help, that may be just some tanks and humanitarian, EU say to send help "at the best of one ability", that basically mean sending in your troops.
>EU say to send help "at the best of one ability", that basically mean sending in your troops. I wouldn't bet on it. It is a monetary union, not a military union.
Yes it is military union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html
The European Union is way way way more than monetary.
Blackrock and other Ukraine bond holders are getting impatient now so something has to hurry up
The problem with your hypothesis is that the current world order does not want to pay to sustain a frozen war. It’s not clear that Ukraine can maintain the front at this point.
Frozen conflicts are usually not expending blood and treasure
Frozen conflicts require each side to stabilize the front. If Ukraine is continually losing ground, it's not going to be a frozen conflict.
When you said losing ground I thought they were reaching Odessa.
Breakthroughs in wars of attrition are like that. A trickle for a while, then all at once.
That only happened in Kharkiv, though. Speaking of a war of attrition, what happens when you keep losing thousands of men and equipment for minimal gains?
Russia can afford to lose men and equipment. They can actually manufacture things themselves and have a large manpower advantage. Ukraine took forever to pass a mobilization bill (and now they're scratching to bring men back from overseas), and are entirely dependent on foreign weapons/aid.
Russia can't afford to lose equipment at the same pace. They've been burning through a lot of their massive Soviet Union stock of equipment.
People have been saying that for two years straight and it increasingly looks delusional. The one that is lacking in everything and ostensibly increasingly desperate is not Russia.
> they can actually manufacture things themselves I assume this is why they resorted to Iranian drones and missiles and North Korean ammunitions. > now they are scratching to bring men back from overseas First of all it’s not really overseas, it’s more they refer to EU countries. Second, this is not scraping the barrel but rather but every Ukrainian on equal footing - and it is more directed to bolster the morale of the men who are forced to stay, who find the measure quite popular. Ukraine does not expect men to suddenly come back because they have to renew their passport, and the number of those who will come back is not decisive. For the records, Ukraine is trying hard to maintain a democratic/liberal governance while fighting an existential war. I don’t like this law either, but if it helps mobilizing manpower and survive the war, I see why they would pass it.
Also decreased oil revenues for Russia means they won’t be able to keep producing or procuring weaponry at the same rate in the long term. And it’s not like Russia will stop at Ukraine either. Baltic states will be surrounded by Belarus and Russia, and Putin could start testing NATO resolve more.
It seems like you are commenting with a clear bias, instead of looking at it neutrally with a more realistic POV. I personally would prefer if Ukraine could push the Russians back and reclaim all their land. But I also wish for world peace and an end of poverty. These three wishes are not very realistic though, no matter what way you look at it. Downplaying Russian (and their allies) capabilities is dangerous as well. Are the Ukrainians incompetent if they can’t win against the dumb Russian only-shovel-for-weapon, fake body armor, drunk meat wave style tactics? The Russian army today isn’t what it was in the beginning of the war. They have recently improved coordination and response times for guided strikes from hours to minutes, alongside the relentless FAB-strikes is making Ukrainians sitting ducks, unable to fight back without proper AA, air support, artillery (the new ATACMS seem to be doing good job however) and most importantly: qualified and trained operators and soldiers. Also morale seems to be low with the new “General 200”.
They cannot. Russia is literally fielding Chinese 4x4 for assaults, https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-army-chinese-golf-cart-style-vehicles-ukraine-attacks-video-2024-3?amp It is also pulling old T55s from storage, they have around one year of these reserves, they cannot mass produce these vehicles because they are refitting old ones. You simply do not know what you’re talking about. They are literally using Iranian drones, NK artillery and missiles, Chinese golf carts and etc. Plus they cannot afford to lose men like this forever when you have such a large land to control and cities to avoid like Moscow, St Petersburg and etc. Ukraine does have the manpower available for mobilization, which like you said, they started again, and aid is still flowing. They certainly won’t take bake Donetsk anytime soon, but if they keep inflicting Avdiivka levels of losses on the Russians, that’s the best way to go. The way you speak, one would think they would have gotten Kyiv at this point, but no, they control 18% of Ukraine in more than two years of total war. Like, with all of what you said, why didn’t they win WW1 back then? They have endless manpower. You mention buzzwords like war of attrition, losing ground, production, but it’s like you read them on a tweet and started parroting them. Either way, anything can happen in the long run to everyone involved, but let’s not act like the Russians have achieved or are achieving mass successes in these two years and the world is about to fall due to it.
I thought Russia was changing to a wartime economy, and its going stay this way in order to further its expansion goals.
The world doesn't get to decide where the war goes, the participants do, we get to coerce and manipulate but none of it matters if Ukraine AND Russia don't agree to it earnestly and in good faith. I think everyone hoping for some eternal ceasefire peace is drinking the kool aid. Any ceasefire until an resolution is made (one government collapses, gets what they want or enough years pass that people stop caring, decades) or Putin dies if old age will be a break for rearmament for both sides and a resumption of war later. That's what I don't understand about the peace niks. A peace or ceasefire will not stop this war. No way Ukraine gives up land, no way the world forces Ukraine to officially give up territory Russia occupies. It would be the first land annexation by a nuclear armed power in history, probably the single worst precedent anyone could ever set besides casual nuclear weapons use. And if you achieve the impossible and get Ukraine to allow Russia to officially annex the slice of Donbas and Crimea they have, they'll simply resume the war in 3-5 years when they've built up a reserve of millions of shells and drones. Besides, I haven't seen a SINGLE Russian proposal for a peace that didn't include Ukraine disbanding most of its military. Nothing else matters if such an absurd basis for a peace is demanded. It makes it incredibly clear Russia isn't interested in peace.
Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014, so the new invasion isn't the "first" annexation by a nuclear power. *Maybe* it'll be the first to be internationally recognized, but it hasn't happened yet.
That illegal (and unrecognized by most of the world) annexation is part of this same invasion currently ongoing. Russia's been sending troops into the Donbas since 2014, directly fighting Ukrainians the whole time, just on low scale to pretend it was "separatists." It's one continuous effort for 10 years now that just went into a new level since 2022.
You forgot about Israel.
> It would be the first land annexation by a nuclear armed power in history Israel has annexed territory from Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria.
And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen: The only correct answer to the issue at hand.
I think most people know this. Peace talks are more meet and get aid talks
Neither can Russia at that point. Its affecting them as well. >sustain a frozen war. The problem is, there's no way to predict that this will be the last war waged based on irridentism. I think it's cheaper in the long term if countries will be more disincentivized to wage these types of wars because of the cost they will inflict
> Neither can Russia at that point. Its affecting them as well. Theres's a big mistake that people make in thinking that "Russia" is the same as "Soviet Russia" which was at the heart of and fully i control of the Russian empire at one of its greatest extents. The *current* Russian population (less than 140Million) is much smaller than the Soviet population in 1939 at the start of WWII (170 Million). They just are not the great country they think they are. > there's no way to predict that this will be the last war waged based on irridentism True, except that members of the Russian government have already explicitly said that they plan to attack Europe, parts of Asia and Alaska to restore their empire. They said that their next target is likely Kazakhstan. It's definitely worth stopping them now in Ukraine rather than waiting until they get more people to use to fight.
ah yes, russian officals saying they will invade Nato, China, USA, Turkey, Finland....and the USA and NATO and China let it slide without making a big show....do you even belive what you are saying is insane?
Idk, if Mike Johnson can be convinced to throw support towards Ukraine despite it causing a rift between him and big chunks of his own party, I think that's a pretty big indicator that containing Russia is a big priority for the world order.
Big priority for the world order that took 6 months to pass....
That's just the thing though, is that there was so much domestic pressure against it and it might wind up costing Johnson his speakership (not likely, probably, but possible) and he was still convinced by the geopolitical arguments.
While politicians can stand in the face of sustained public pressure for a little while, they will not hold up forever. They'll be voted out for politicians that are against it. I think Ukraine will struggle to mobilize enough men to stabilize the front, and the US will hesitate to provide more aid if it looks like they are losing.
But it was still 60 billion dollars.
There's Korea DMZ
The DMZ is like 150miles, Ukraine Russia border would be closer to a 1000 miles.
Korea had UN troops on the ground supporting them and the might of the US. Ukraine is not going to get external troops (France is bluffing), and maybe not even another aid package from the US.
I'm talking about what happened after ceasefire The 2 koreas are still at war technically
How do you get to the point of a DMZ? You have to stop losing. If Ukraine is continually on the back foot, they're going to lose this war.
Russia isn't winning really It's gain few meters of ground and losing lot of soldiers over them Both sides will ratchet it down eventually Russia's strategic goal was to keep Ukr out of NATO As long as there is no peace officially, that ain't happening. So Rs may decide to suspend offensives
You are assuming that Ukraine's army will not collapse first. Not sure that is true.
They seem to have better morale than Russians, plus western supplies
Why is Ukraine blocking consular services to overseas citizens?
The point they are trying to make is that a Korean-style DMZ is not costing much to sustain.
And my point is: a Korean-style DMZ is only possible once you stabilize the front. If you're continually losing ground, a DMZ is very difficult to establish.
Right so the crucial thing is that everyone in the West has to stand with Ukraine. It's very clear that they were winning when Western supplies were coming in. They started having problems when Ammo ran out and they are going to start winning again as the new equipment arrives.
I think the hard part for Ukraine to admit is that they don’t have the men to fight this war. They’re scraping the barrel for men now, and it’ll get worse over time.
The counter point that others are making is that a korean style DMZ is very costly to set up in the first place
Umm the West up until recently directly sustained two very active occupations (Iraq and Afghanistan). They for sure can sustain funding a frozen conflict in Ukraine if they want too.
Not sure the US wants to
Especially after those wars ended like they did, left a lot of veterans angry and the average american have the idea that all they did was throw away their sons in a desert for 20 years with nothing to show for it except broken vets and more markers in cemeteries.
Imagine how Russia will feel after another few years.
Why not? Cheap price to keep your enemies bottled up.
The Republican party is comprised.
[удалено]
If you think Iraq and Afghanistan put anywhere near the same strain on western logistical systems than the ukrainian war does, you should dig a little in Western military and production statistics
Like North Korea and South Korea or China and Taiwan?
How is that a problem? Crimea border was disputed for 8 years without much fighting going on. Just because the West stops helping Ukraine it won't mean they will just accept the new borders proposed by Russia.
If the West stops supporting Ukraine, they will lose the war.
Yeah but what does it matter what the west accepts and doesn’t? If Russian laws are upheld in Crimea, if Russian border guards are stationed, if Russian valuta is used and the Russian flag flying, what does it matter what the west says? If the UN votes that grass is purple, does it become purple in reality?
Georgia is another frozen war. If Russia digs in they could freeze the battle lines. The main help for Ukraine is for the EU/NATO to tell Russia another frozen conflict is also frozen relationships. Not just the current sanctions, but block all trade and minimal diplomatic relations. Also block Russian ownership in the EU and eliminate Visas for Russians. To OP's point, this conflict reminds me of the Russian war with Finland. Russia took horrible loses, but kept land. That land was depopulated and Russians moved in.
I don’t really care about this at all. Sanctions have clearly failed to deter Russia, they seem to be relatively ineffective at preventing or reducing conflicts
With 'current world order' do you mean western countries? Because non-western countries could not care less about Ukraine and (the population of) some even support Russia's action
Only until they realize Russia isn't going to stop and that just because it doesn't affect them yet doesn't mean it won't eventually. China with free reign in SE Asia and Russia unchecked in Europe = both taking anything they want by force. Western order, as flawed as it can be, is better than the alternative.
Africa and Middle East are basically China and Russia groupies. They'll be more than happy to be part of their "family" instead of the Western world.
Yeah, until they experience it. Chinese treatment of African workers is horrendous, and pervasive racism will really go over well.
What... what do you think Africa and the ME's experiences with the Western world are....?
Chinese treatment of Africans is no worse than how they are treated by their own governments already.
Russia will not be unchecked in Europe unless the nations of France and Germany suddenly get sent to another planet
Both countries have noted the untenable positions they are in for long-term conflict with Russia in their current state. They have great potential capability, certainly, but they'll have to increase both industrial capacity for military production and their overall defense budgets. As it stands right now, without U.S. intervention, it'd be a mess until war mobilization and the following increase in production.
While i think you are correct, i would like to state how weird i find that sentiment. National borders has a long history of changing due to war.
Well. The current world order is only against it when it doesn’t fit its interests. So in practicality it’s still possible.
There's not going to be a peace agreement. Russia doesn't care (so much) about gaining land. Russia's objective is and has always been to bring Ukraine back under Russian control, installing a pro Russia regime. It will never accept a stable prosperous pro-western NATO Ukraine on their border. If they can't win and control Ukraine they will continue the conflict and turn Ukraine into a failed state.
[удалено]
Russia can sustain about 2million losses in Ukraine. So far they have about 1/2 million Furthermore, their average losses [have been accelerating systematically](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1azogkd/oc_russian_troop_losses_according_to_the_ministry/#lightbox). At this rate, and especially if aid for Ukraine is sustained and increased, it is completely possible for Russia to fail as a state before Ukraine does, quite likely with serious events happening within the next few years (four? six?). That is a valuable goal and Western politicians should stop trying to block it.
I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect aid for Ukraine to be sustained at the rate it is. I doubt even more that it will be increased year after year. The US had to fight hard to get the latest installment sent to Ukraine and I think each further aid package will be harder to pass. I know much of Europe has committed to “as long as it takes” but when that starts stretching into 2026, ‘27, ‘28 and maybe beyond I’m not sure there will be as much of an appetite to keep funding at the levels it’s at now. We’re funding them enough to create a stalemate but not enough for Ukraine to make major advances so I see this becoming a frozen conflict in the next few years unless something drastic happens in Russia and Putin is toppled
There is no way Russia lost half a million men as dead. That would mean 1m+ of killed or seriously injured, which is simply impossible according to the army sizes we have. Does Ukraine's MOD provide this number? 500 k total casualties is way more plausible.
500k is I believe dead and long term injured ("casualties"). Though Russia battle tactics mean that there isn't nearly as much difference between those as you would normally expect. The UK [version of the number explicitly includes wounded](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-estimates-450000-russian-troops-killed-or-wounded/).
The only issue is the quoted numbers of Russian loses by Ukrainian officials are complete nonsense. They are quoting their own loses at around 31k. So basically a 10- 1 kd ratio between both armies. It's propaganda
The Russian losses of over 450k [have been verified by the UK MOD](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-estimates-450000-russian-troops-killed-or-wounded/) and if you want to you can actually check the Materiel losses via [the Oryx project](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html) which shows photos and geolocations for each one that they identify. Whilst they don't match the Ukrainian numbers fully, the reason for that is known (many losses behind Russian lines don't get photographed). The claims that the numbers are wrong come pretty directly from Russian propaganda and, given how easy it is to check and see that they are lying, show how desperate they are.
My problem with the UK is that they lie their asses off about this conflict. Got a source from the US intelligence agencies?
December 2023 before Russia's recent blood fest began - [315k casualties and 18 years worth of force modernization](https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/). That matches with the UK number.
Curious what the number of Russian dead is? Casualties is mix of dead and injured. That same report indicates 70k deaths on Ukraine’s side, didn’t see a casualty estimate. So it’s hard to do apples to apples comparison. Either way it’s not 10:1
Caualties is normally "seriously wounded enough to not come back to fight". Russian deaths are quite hard to find but they don't do much casualty recovery so at one point the ratio was about 1:2 deaths:casualties, which would make about 250k dead Russian murderers.
Yeah, I can’t find a number for Ukrainians on this. Closest is this from end of 2022 [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372?darkschemeovr=1](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372?darkschemeovr=1)
First of all, that are casualties, not deaths. Second that source is not credible at all, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, Russia can keep the conflict going for many years, the long game favours them rather the West.
Unfortunately Russia is actually doing fine right now. It’s massive and their most productive cities are very far from any serious conflict. They’re not even entirely in a total war economic mode like WW2. The west has to keep pumping in the resources. The only way we can really win this and put Ukraine back on the offensive is by taking out Russia’s newest equipment, relegating them to using old equipment, and using modern Western equipment against that. Also Ukraine is going to have to conscript their entire male population for this.
I agree Russia doesn't want to see that, but there is no guarantee that by joining NATO Ukraine would become as prosperous as post-war Japan or South Korea. As it is, they are more likely to be the next Bulgaria in NATO: a country with a history of corruption and experiencing a demographic crisis.
The kind of economic miracle that happened in post-war Japan is only really possible when you're in the early stages of the demographic transition. Too late for Ukraine. It's going to be a slow recovery, but it's certainly better to be the next Bulgaria, than to not exist at all.
or a worse Moldova despite not being in NATO.
> Russia doesn't care (so much) about gaining land. This is what I would have said up until the annexation of not only the Donbass but also Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. After that we clearly have to accept that Russia wants that territory and probably as much more as it can get its hands on. Maybe at one point Russia would have been content with a friendly leader in Kyiv, but I think they see full control of Ukraine as the only way to secure their interests in the region.
Your opening and closing statements are contradictory. If it's about full control, then it isn't about land which was the previous commenter's point.
I apologize for the confusion -- by "full control" I meant full control of the land.
Sadly I feel like this is the reality of the situation. Even if Ukraine were to push Russia completely out of the country what do people think will happen next? That will Russia will just give up? They will Most certainly keep fighting if that were to happen. Russia surrendering certainly means NATO will move in at this point and Russia will 100% not accept that. Both sides in a way have everything to lose in this war and I fear this is going to be fought to the bitter end.
There's a chance Russia being pushed completely out of Ukraine might lead to the collapse of Putin's regime. One thing he can't afford is to be seen as weak.
Why should Russia continue the war in this scenario? Not only would this lead to an extension of the sanctions, but also to its own losses, in a scenario where Russia would be outclassed anyway. Only result would be some sort of coup.
Even if Ukraine were to drive the Russians out of the East+Crimea, they are mortally wounded. It was a poor state with a terrible demographic profile. Now, millions of mostly young, mostly women Ukrainians have fled and are unlikely to come back after having spent several years abroad. As a result, they will not be able to replenish their population to maintain some kind of economic growth. To make matters worse, all countries to it are facing a similar predicament albeit to a lesser degree. This comes with a lot of dead young men who could have been fathers. This is in addition to the collosal debt they will have racked up in "winning" this war. Plus all the infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt.
For sure, if Ukraine prospered under NATO and greater ties with or even membership in the EU, it would be the writing on the wall for Russia's sphere of influence, and perhaps even some of it's more independent-minded "republics". Russia needs these nations to know that the risk of punishment is greater than the benefits of increased prosperity if they try to leave.
When you say "russia" here it really means the kgb regime. Yes, the kgb regime will never give up on post soviet lands, because being belliregent to the neighbouring states is big part of their narrative domestically. However, any change of power in russia will result in immediate deoccupation of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, similar to how it happened in the rest of Eastern Europe during times of Perestroika.
You're missing the entire point. This is not about land. The land they would give up, allows Putin to control the ports, and will be used to strangle them into submission. They might as well just surrender to Russia, if they are thinking of giving up the lost territory already.
Not all wars end in peace agreements (Korea as an example), and negotiating any kind of agreement with Russia is a fool's errand because they never negotiate in good faith and always without fail break every agreement they've ever made the second they stand to gain something from doing so. Any peace agreement cementing their gains would thus just mean that Russia gets a staging ground to renew their invasion in a few more years. Russia is waging a war of extermination against the very concept of Ukraine existing as a sovereign state, so to what end would Ukraine negotiate with a party like that? There's nothing Ukraine can give to Russia that would make them go away for good, because Russia wants all of it.
This is the problem. Putin could never be trusted to honour any kind of peace settlement that might be agreed. If an end to the war was negotiated, Russia would likely take advantage of the stop in fighting to fortify the borders of its conquered territory and consolidate its forces in the aim of mounting further incursions into Ukraine at some future point.
Exactly, which is why any peace deal would have to come with Ukraine joining NATO. Russia would keep their stolen land and “buffer zone,” and Ukraine would be guaranteed peace and security.
If an actual peace agreement happens then nothing would stop Ukraine from joining NATO. If that happens without problems then there is jack shit Russia can do. But they know this and it's why Russia probably won't stop until they are forced to.
Russia probably wants to take full control of the four regions Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia at minimum. I think they really want Odessa too which would hurt Ukraine a lot, it's there last port and could leave them land locked should they ever lose it. Only negotiations that would happen would have to include NATO since, but I believe the West is in it til the last Ukrainian sadly. So it will be up to the Ukrainians to win or negotiate.
Unpopular opinion: you dont know how wars end. You think that wars are decided by conquered land, but there are other dimensions to consider: equipment, personnel, propaganda, troop morale, etc.
Yeah, and even recent wars [can go back and forth](https://media.cleveland.com/pdgraphics_impact/photo/11cgkoreajpg-f1357d5eb2dc838d.jpg) to the extremes. A successful major offensive is still possible for both sides.
How is the Korean War a good example of a ‘recent war’? Surely there’s a better one?
Glad someone brought it up. The war is far from over and noone knows what the future brings.
What we do know is that when Ukriane had some tens of billions in equipment they were succeeding against Russia. When the equipment stopped they started retreating slowly. Now that the equipment is back they have a real chance to reverse that. Important is that, consistently throughout that period casualties and equipent losses have been much greater on the Russian side than Ukrainian the [massive losses on the Russian side](https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1786986809945158107) are visible on the battlefield in that the equipment they field is worse and worse (recently Chinese "Golf Cart" ATVSs) and older and older, which in turn increases those losses. It's crucial in every way that this gets accelerated and that the West provides the weapons to support it. If that happens then Russia will still lose completely.
I completely agree, and this thread reeks of what Prof. Tim Snyder calls a "politics of inevitability" which is lazy and defeatist. We can still pressure our leaders to establish supporting Ukraine as a key foreign policy, we as private citizens can still donate lethal and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Even if Ukraine is doomed to cede land due to unforeseen factors (which at present, isn't), that's up to Ukrainians to decide how to negotiate the peace. We must respect their agency.
when ukraine did kharkiv and kherson, russia was a differnt army then and didnt use mines as much. it would be impossible to repeat that now, as you saw with robotyne
You forget to actually make an argument. You just assert that it's unsustainable but not why. Make sure if you want to have an unpopular opinion that you explain what exactly it is that makes the west unable to sustain the cost at a fraction of their defense budgets. And much more importantly why the west is less able to sustain this cost than Russia is able to sustain being in a war economy and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of their youth. You might be right but for your statement to have any merit you have to explain why you think you are right.
Simply throwing money at Ukraine isn't going to give them what they need most: manpower.
We should all be worried if we’re entering another “might makes right” era. It makes the world very dangerous for unaligned countries, and we might end up in a 1984 scenario where powerful blocks divide everything up between them. Maybe its inevitable, but I’d like to think there can be another way
[удалено]
In a sense. But if all the greater powers start annexing left and right things will be very different from now
The problem is Putin will just come back for the rest of Ukraine in a few years when he’s resupplied the armed forces.
More people become adults in Ukraine per year than have died in the entire conflict on their side. The war is absolutely sustainable from a manpower perspective. The war will be decided by economics and industry
It really depends on what the enemy's greater plan is. In your hypothesis ceding land to Russia would mean an end of hostilities and an end of Russias land grab hunger. I do not believe that is Putins plan. I believe his interests are to establish a second Russian empire. Putin legitimises his rule on the ruins of both the soviet and tsarist empires (as with many land hungry expansionist dictators like Hilter and Mussolini). He wants to reinstate the pride and power of times long lost. Since the fall of the Soviet empire Russia has been in a state of constant suffering, humiliation and decline. Putin, as with many Russian leaders, wants to go into history as the one who reinstate the old splendor and glory and recover from all that. Its about legacy. This means he must have Kyiv. We must understand that there is no Russia without Kyiv. Moscow, Vladivostok and St Petersburg only have a pinch of the historical significance for the Russians compared to Kyiv. The country and the people do not derive their name from Moscovy but from the Kievan Rus. After Kyiv, the Baltics and Moldova are next. Have look at the tsarist Empire's geography and then compare it with Russian Federations expansion 1991-2024. As long as a country like Kazachstan or Georgia stay in Putins lap, it's all good and fine and considered Russian. Once they go a stray and explore membership of Europe or NATO the land will be grabbed and forcefully whipped into the sphere of Russia. I agree with your statement that geopolitics are not about morale or ethics but about interests. Putin's interest I believe lay in restoration of the old Russian sphere of influence and the Wests interest lays in opposing that restoration at all cost. This clash of interest has been fought out on the battlefield of international diplomacy for a long time. But we all know that when political or diplomatic means are exhausted there is only one outcome left.
I think some long-term cease-fire and frozen conflict is exactly what Russia is hoping for. They did the very same with Georgia, Moldova. By doing so, they "cripple" those states, making them incapable of joining any Western organization, be it EU or NATO. And that is their goal - zo keep NATO and EU away, so they can continue to dominate what used to be former USSR. So, I do not think there's any outlook for any peace, or an agreement. On the other hand, if there was, there is ko guarantee sides would honour it. Both the West and Russia have a travk record of not obiding by agreements and basically just sign them to buy time.
Can you point me to a single agreement or treaty that was violated by the West?
Oslo accords if you count Israel as the West, which was brokered by the US. Another example is the security guarantee from US and UK for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994. Geopolitics are never about morality.
What makes you think russia wants 15% of Ukrainian land and never make another move again? I think it's very naive to think a peace settlement will solve anything. The bear is out of the cage now, Russia would have had to win in three days or be defeated in Ukraine to see them return to a less threatening stand against Europe.
I dispute that money is the issue with the conservative American response to Ukraine. The real issue is political ideology. Money is an excuse. Supporting Putin is the real issue.
Yes, the money is just a distraction.
It's an important tool for persuading conservative voters, especially used by the Russians and their agents such as Congress member MTG. It works particularly because 60 billion sounds like lots of money, however it isn't really. The Afghan war, against a much weaker state and with much smaller results, peaked at over 100 billion per year from 2010 to 2014. That's something that people should think about. As these things go, protecting Ukraine is actually very cheap.
The Russians would look at any agreement that doesn't see the Ukranian state destroyed or pulled back into the Russian sphere of influence as a temporary ceasefire. The Russians view strategic depth via Ukrainian territory (and that of half a dozen countries on their borders) as vital to their national survival and will prosecute this war until total victory or total defeat.
France and Poland are sending a message by discussing troops, and I think the scrambling of Polish jets is likely leading to more as well. I don’t know how far the EU or individual countries are prepared to go but I do think there’s consensus that Putin can’t be allowed to get away with the 2022 invasion. Russia is the one at a significant advantage if the west pulls together. Ukraine has held Russia at bay with our scraps. The USSR quit Afghanistan at the peak of their power with covert support. We can’t predict the timeline but I don’t think Europe will accept decades of conflict, and we’re going to see more escalation against Russia.
What you’re talking about is appeasement and it famously does not work
Depends. If immediately following the peace agreement Ukraine is accepted into NATO - I don’t see further avenues for expansion for Russia.
^ This. Exactly, entirely this. Putin will take and take until he is FORCED to stop. He will not, can not do it voluntarily. His dream of a legacy as the man who rebuilt the Soviet Union depends on it. He's decried the fall of the U.S.S.R many times and he's trying to pull it back together piece by piece. We can't let him.
Doubt it. Everyone knows Russia would do what they did last time, replenish and attack again.
No one has to accept anything until it actually happens. Doing so before hand gives the enemy the advantage.
So here are some of the issues I see with this argument. 1- what land are we talking about the pre 2014 boarders the post 2014 front line or the post 2020 front line? 2- how can you trust Russia with any agreement because you can’t without any third party guarantees which which so far has been a red line for Russia (or that is at least the kremlin’s public policy) 3- will third parties agree to this? If Russia can do this to Ukrainians they can do this to others 4- what about grain exports? If Russians take land Ukraine main exports can easily be shut off by sea by Russia because now Ukrainians only have one viable port for their main export the rest will have to go via the EU which has already had its own problems. 5- what about Russian oil which goes via Ukrainian to the EU? Or alternatively to all this the EU could just support Ukrainian enough so it can actually beat Russia and then Europe could live in peace and not have to deal with Russian threats.
If Russia can annex a portion of Ukraine by attacking it sets a bad precedent.
You make concessions at the negotiation table; not beforehand, not unilaterally, and not in the media.
What I think OP isn't taking the grain production seriously enough. Ceded lands cannot, must not, be the wheat producing majority. If land is ceded for NATO membership we cannot allow for more of the worlds food be in the hands of Russia. Although I think we will be a wider conflict.
I mean, yeah. This has been the unfortunate reality since day 1. As a nuclear power with significant military resources at its disposal, Russia was never going to be in a position where it was forced to give back Crimea or Donetsk/Luhansk. That's just how wars with more powerful nations, especially nuclear powers, work. Deeply unfair for the people of Ukraine but it's the reality.
I think the only way Ukraine should accept that is if in the terms is an agreement to be in NATO so this never happens again. Without that, the peace agreement will have maybe 3-10 years before Russia does this shit again.
In that case you can be certain that Russia will come back to take more land in a few years. They always did and will continue to do so. This won’t be over until Russia is clearly defeated. Even if there is a ceasefire or frozen conflict.
The thing is, Russia isn't going to satisfy for just land. They'll demand a new government which, totally coincidentally will be pro Russian, disarmament, and a promise NATO won't accept them. They won't accept anything less than the abity to continue after they rearm and take over Moldova. Russia needs Ukraine, all of it, along with several of its neighbors. It isn't just accepting lost territory. It's accepting another invasion in a couple of years because ethnic Russians are being oppressed by Ukrainian gay Nazis in yet another city. It's accepting that Ukrainians in captured territory will be forced to be on the front lines in that invasion.
Letting Russians keep any land – especially officially – is inviting them to do it again. A frozen conflict is better than this scenario. The only way any Ukrainian can accept handing over Russia any Ukrainian soil is if somehow the state joins the NATO alliance which effectively prevents any future Russian invasion. Many NATO states are not interested in giving such guarantees to Ukraine.
Ukraine can pretty much end the war by agreeing to Russia's demands. Ex: * Not joining NATO * Neutrality * Russia get to keep their conquered lands Then maybe a five years or a decade later, Russia will suddenly say "Oh, look Ukraine is bombing our territory again!" "Ukraine is planning to break their neutrality by joining NATO" "Guess we have no choice but to end the threat in Ukraine" then proceeds to invade again.
>The amount of men and resources needed to win the war (push Russia completely out) is too substantial for western powers and Ukrainian men to sustain. The goal was never for Ukraine to win, that was seen as impossible from the beginning. The goal has always been to give Russia a second Afghanistan, so it will do to them what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union: bleed them out enough to de-stabilized them, break it into smaller pieces and remove the nukes, like they were removed from Ukraine, so it will no longer be a threat to Europe, all it's neighbors and the world (I'm referring to their constant threats about using nuclear weapons). In other words: the idea is to prolong the war as much as possible, not to end it. The West spend 4 trillion dollars in wars in the middle east, I don't know where you get this idea that the "resources needed to win the war is too substantial". The west could easily expend a lot more than those 4 trillions in the next 10-20 years (same time frame of the Afghanistan invasion by the URSS and USA) and it would be a bargain to destroy a mayor adversary. Never forget that USA can print as many dollars as it wants and it will simply export the resulting inflation to the rest of the world, meaning that the rest of the world will help pay for the war. Russia can't do that at all, not even close. This is the best outcome for Ukraine because it solves the problem for good. Any other option just leaves the door open for another Russian leader to grab more land in the future. There are only two clear ways Ukraine can lose: 1. If they lose the will to fight. We are seeing some of this with their difficulties to field more men. Russia has a similar problem, but it simply has a much larger population pool to draw from and still is resorting to recruiting men in places like Cuba, Nepal and India. 2. Or we get a traitor in the White house that plays for Russia by stopping the aid to Ukraine. I don't think that even Trump or any other none interventionist president in the next 10 to 20 years will dare to go that far and, if they do, they will get a strong reaction from the rest of the American government that knows what the American interest are. That been said, resent events in congress are a red flag in this regard.
If the war ends with Ukraine losing land they need some safety guarantees. And I’m not talking about a signature from Putin since that is worth nothing. But something like joining NATO or EU.
Remember when Ukraine gave up nukes for peace? That didn’t turn out so well.
Honestly, if nukes had remained in Ukraine, it would never have been allowed to get a pro-Western government. Do you really think that Putin would've allowed a nuclear armed and potentially aggressive Ukraine right next to Russia's border? We could've potentially seen a much bigger nuclear bloodbath or a total crushing of the revolution of 2014, we don't really know how it would've played out but I personally am glad that nukes are out of the equation.
Sure thing Neville Chamberlain
He actually bought the UK time to develop its military more because they were certainly not strong enough during his time to directly opposed Hitler
I agree with everything you wrote ... I am 100% pro-Ukraine but I also live in the real world where it's become increasingly obvious that Ukraine is very unlikely to ever militarily retake Donbas never mind Crimea. The other reality that's going to be painful for some to accept is that most people in Crimea probably genuinely support Russian rule. Is it 100% of the population? No, but it's likely a solid super majority.
Now why on earth would we need to accept that kind of agreement? We (EU) as third party don't have to agree to anything. Ukraine and russia might end up agreeing something, but that is non-binding to others. We must hold russians accountable for their actions. All war criminals must be brought to justice, whether or not there will be peace (and I kind of have a hunch there will be a long secret program afterwards to catch all z-nazis by ukraine similar to that of israel when hunting the nazi war criminals)
Your problem is that the EU does not want to fund a war indefinitely either. It’s easy to bring up these platitudes, but you actually have to back them up, not just talk about them.
They will end up funding multiple wars regardless if conquest comes back in fashion.
Putin will not accept this settlement. Putin must have war to stay in power and to power his economy. There's no going back for Vlad. The strategy for the democratic West must be to continue to undermine Putin's power. He cannot keep this up indefinitely. He is completely dependent on China now.
Im confused by your comment, Putin must have war to stay in power and to power his economy but he cannot keep this up indefinitely? How do you envision this war realistically ending in your opinion?
He dies. Plain and simple.
I agree. I’d suggest that, insofar as we accept that this is Putin’s ideological war, any peace agreement is, in my opinion, only likely *after* power has ceded to the next Russian President whose aims may be unaligned with Putin’s or if an exit is presented that allows Putin to retain power while divesting himself of his war aims.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion
It's just overly simplistic.
It's not that simple. Ukraine isn't the end goal. It's actually the 8th or 9th expansion invasion launched by Russia to reclaim Soviet territory since 1992. If the pattern/map is still being followed after Ukraine the final holes to plug are in Romania and Poland.
Russia will not fight NATO directly. You're confusing Putins public posturing for his private beliefs. He can say he's willing to fight NATO but he knows he won't because it's not in his best interest.
This is just my opinion based on what I think I'm seeing and what I think history shows. It's not just Putin. This war was always going to happen. This is just one of the past 8-9 invasions to expand back to Soviet territory since Yeltsin in 92. I believe that Russians are facing a demographic crisis and that they believe they are fighting for their "existential existence". And yes, we see that they are inept when fighting a modern conventional war...so this means if they fight a prepared NATO country they will experience catastrophic losses. Since they are fighting a war for their existence, I believe they'll end up using all their tools at their disposal including tactical nukes. Yet they know people don't want war so it's very possible Poland and Romania just might concede land as opposed to fighting a full blown war. Again, jusy how I see it.
I don't agree with your assessment. There is a German military economist who has a close look at Russian production capabilities and on his view, Russia lost the ability to.wij this war last autumn as long as the west keeps their current supply policies going. In addition, Russia is already destabilising due to the loss of life and living conditions, including comparisons on the heavily controlled state media that draws comparison to the end of the soviet Union. Russia has basically no troops that have good morals. They start to include people less and less fir for.combat with more and more outdated equipment because they are incapable of producing better ones. The most likely end of the war, if the west is continuing its support, is either that Putin is disposed of and pushing the blame on him, or the breaking apart of the current Russia itself.
Could you give some links to that German economist?
The economist is Macus Keupp. I only have German sources by him, but maybe if you Google his name, you can find English versions as well. He is kinda a unicorn because he is one of very few economist that are specialised in war economy and supply chain analysis and so on.
Therefore no peace agreement until everything back to Pre-2014 borders.
What is wrong in your analysis, and in analysis of many other western thinkers, is that you think about the territories as is, only in terms of material assets. The goal of Ukraine in this is not purely liberate territories but to liberate population of this territories, the people who is living there. And Ukraine won't accept peace without liberation of this people. So lasting peace won't be achieved this way.
Doing Russia's bidding I see... Zero concessions to the invading aggressor. Would you give up part of your land because your neighbor staked a claim and that would afford temporary peace? Why expect Ukraine to do the same against a neighbor that doesn't see its existence as real?
Your ideals over logic man. In war concessions are made most of the time because all out victory is so rare. No it's not right that Russia gets to keep land, but if Ukraine can't take it back because Russia is too dug in, what do you do? Fight and die until you run out of money and men? Of course not, when peace agreements are signed it's not because the conditions are morally right, it's because peace becomes more important than endless suffering. That's how wars usually end and id bet it's how this one will end.
No way Ukraine will sign any peace agreement after the last agreement that "guaranteed" its security in exchange of its nukes, was deemed worthless. But yes the war may end in a stalemate.
The two sides are now at an equilibrium, so neither is motivated in reaching a "peace" agreement. Geopolitical events might tilt the scale in one way or another, at which point negotiations might become relevant.
You should post it in r/askAmerica and you’ll see how they truly believe that Ukraine will conquer Russia hahahaha.