Status
Not open for further replies.
Imo not when the other option is what we will now see, which is even more lost territories. The first sentence merely makes the second (a peace treaty with some lost land) unethical. Now the peace will be still unethical, and a lot more destructive.
That "first" option - exchange land for peace - never existed, short of total surrender. It was, and is, a mirage for criminally naive.

Giving up land without putting up a fight would have meant further strengthening Russia and further weakening Ukraine at no cost whatsoever for Russia. And because their sole motivation for the war is greed, it would have meant that they simply would have manufactured any random excuse to be back for more free real estate after a year or two.

Ukraine understood this and you should understand this too.
 
That "first" option - exchange land for peace - never existed, short of total surrender.
I appreciate the sentiment, but is there actual proof of this? You do recall there were talks to happen back then, at a specific location.
Not that it matters now. Ukraine looks set to lose all of the land Russia currently controls. I don't urge you to expect the people in Ukraine to theorize "oh, the alternative was to be fully annexed, so we won".
 
I appreciate the sentiment, but is there actual proof of this? You do recall there were talks to happen back then, at a specific location.
Not that it matters now. Ukraine looks set to lose all of the land Russia currently controls. I don't urge you to expect the people in Ukraine to theorize "oh, the alternative was to be fully annexed, so we won".

In chronological order it was indeed discussed early


then refused, also early

 
Peace talks and neutrality plan were undisputed facts.
Reuters claims are not backed by any evidence, we can only believe they had contacts with mysterious unnamed "people close to the Russian leadership".

While concrete people participating in negotiations tell different story.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed to Israeli media that he traveled to Moscow as Israeli prime minister last March to broker an early ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and the two sides agreed to make comprises, but the ceasefire talks were "interrupted" by the West.
The West decided "to crush Putin rather than to negotiate"
 
That makes sense. Of course there isn't going to be an invasion.
 
Peace talks and neutrality plan were undisputed facts.
Reuters claims are not backed by any evidence, we can only believe they had contacts with mysterious unnamed "people close to the Russian leadership".

While concrete people participating in negotiations tell different story.

Since we in "the west" are going to be incessantly accused of being out to "crush Russia", and attacked – indirectly so far, but directly is clearly an option for Russia – why on earth shouldn't we destroy Russia?

If we are going to be laden with the cost of doing it, without doing it anyway... Make this Russian dream come true...
 
The upside to this non war is that Putin's army was shown to all the world to be a paper tiger that cannot succeed on its own in a regional war. Does anyone know what percent of it now is mercenaries or prisoners?
 
Well it need not be "crushed" or "destroyed", Rome is still there as are the Romans, it is just no longer the Roman empire, and they no longer bother us.

That is the model we will emulate. Obviously that does not help Ukraine, we should distinguish the immediate tactical situation from the larger strategic picture that will decades or even centuries to settle.
 
The upside to this non war is that Putin's army was shown to all the world to be a paper tiger that cannot succeed on its own in a regional war. Does anyone know what percent of it now is mercenaries or prisoners?

I don't think that percentage changes much, the Bakhmut strategy is the usual now, the previous week recruits are the cannon fodder who are replaced by the new week recruits, so far the recruitment rate is enough to match the casualty rate, while the more experimented troops composition doesn't change that much. It works for them, and even if the killed ratio per km² captured is one of the worst in history, it seems they can sustain it, and, unlike most western states, don't care about it, as long as it gives them "victory".

It's a warning for what will came after, one should not underestimate the capacity of that army to invade another neighbor quickly after this war end.

On the other front


Russia's economy has defied doomsday predictions more than 32 months into its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

But Russia's red-hot wartime economy comes with a price: inflation, which hit 9.8% in September.

The price hikes are trickling down to basic food items, with prices of potatoes — a Russian staple — surging this year by 64% as of November 5, according to official statistics.

Potatoes' price surge stems from bad weather and the rising cost of production amid a labor shortage and rising wages.

[...]

Inflation has also hit a range of processed goods in recent months, including bread, dairy, chocolate, and beer, Russian media reported.

[...]

To tame prices, Russia's central bank has hiked its key interest rate to a record high of 21% last month. It said last week that it could hike its key rate again at its next meeting in December.

High interest rates are irritating business leaders, who are more loudly critiquing the central bank's policies.

Sergei Chemezov, the CEO of the defense conglomerate Rostec, said in an address to Russian senators in late October that "record" interest rates were "eating up" profits.

Chemezov further warned that the high borrowing rates would eventually bankrupt most enterprises.

Last week, officials and business leaders at an economic forum in central Russia expressed pessimism about the country's economy next year. They predict lower-than-expected growth and investment delays due to the central bank's rate hike and a lack of state funding.
 
Nothing prevents you from pursuing your dreams.
It's not like you havent tried many times and failed consistently :)
This is just Russian mirroring.

At the very least, if "the west" actually planned on taking down Russia – there should be at least a glimmer of a discernible strategy for how-to.

Even if the Russian invasion in 2022 was a surprise at least by now – soon to go into year four of war – by now some kind of discernible strategy should have been formulated – IF anyone was interested enough. And still... nothing.

Or at least nothing beyond the incessant Russian fantasizing about violence. When not fantasies about what they are going to do to someone, then what they fantasize someone else might hypothetically do to them.

Liz Truss (and god she was a tool, but still UK PM for a New York minute) spent her last days in office planning for a Russian nuclear strike. (Don't say the Russian violence trash-talk doesn't produce results):

First there should deterrence against Russian aggression at this point. And there isn't even that.

It's why the Russian narratives about any and all of this makes no sense – beyond the violence fantasies, but they are their own thing clearly.
 

'It flew right into her room': Ukrainian girl killed by Russian drone as attacks surge​

Maria Troyanivska had come home early the night a Russian drone hit her bedroom.
“It flew in through the window, right into her room,” her mother Viktoria tells the BBC. After the explosion, she and her husband Volodymyr ran from the next room to find their daughter’s room on fire.
“We tried to put it out, but everything was burning so strongly,” she says through tears. “It was impossible to breathe – we had to leave.”
The Russian Shahed drone killed the 14-year-old in her bed, in her suburban apartment in Kyiv, last month.
“She died immediately, and then burned,” her mother said. “We had to bury her in a closed coffin. She had no chance of surviving.”

Russia is massively increasing drone strikes on Ukraine. More than 2,000 were launched in October, according to Ukraine’s general staff - a record number in this war.
The same report says Russia fired 1,410 drones in September, and 818 in August - compared with around 1,100 for the entire three-month period before that.
It’s part of a wider resurgence for Russian forces. The invaders are advancing all along the front lines. North Korean troops have joined the war on Moscow’s side. And with the election of Donald Trump for a second term as US president, Ukraine’s depleted and war-weary forces are facing uncertain support from their biggest military donor.
The majority of the Russian drones raining down on Ukraine are Iranian-designed Shaheds: propeller-driven, with a distinctive wing shape and a deadly warhead packed into the nose cone.
Russia has also started to launch fake drones, without any explosives, to confuse Ukraine’s air defence units and force them to waste ammunition.
Compared to missiles they are much cheaper to build, easier to fire, and designed to sap morale.

Every night, Ukrainians go to sleep to notifications pinging on their phones, as inbound drones crisscross the country, setting sirens blaring.
And every morning, they wake to news of yet another strike. Just since the start of November, drones have hit Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia.
On Sunday, Russia launched 145 drones at Ukraine, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky - a record number for a single day since the start of the full-scale invasion.
Kyiv said that day it had managed to shoot down 62 drones, and that a further 67 were “lost” - meaning they were either downed by electronic warfare, or disappeared from radar screens.
Ukrainian air defences are struggling to cope with the surging numbers.

“So far we have been intercepting them. I hope we will keep intercepting them,” Sgt Mykhailo Shamanov, a spokesperson for Kyiv city military administration, told the BBC.
While he says Russia tries to hit military installations, the “general aim is terrorising civilians”.
They know the Russians will continue to ramp up these attacks, he said – it’s why his government is constantly asking for more air defence from Western allies.
It’s also why Ukraine is nervously waiting to see how US President-elect Trump will approach the war when he re-enters office.
“Even if air defence works well, drone or missile debris falls on the city. It causes fires, damage and unfortunately sometimes victims,” he explained.
“Every night it’s a lottery – where it hits, where it’s shot down, where it falls and what happens.”

Vitaliy and his men have no fixed post – their weaponry for shooting down the Shaheds is carried on the back of a flatbed truck, allowing them to manoeuvre quickly.
“We try to monitor, move, outpace the drone, destroy it,” he said.
It’s clear the job is taking its toll.
“Half a year ago, it was 50 drones a month. Now the number has risen to 100 drones, every night,” he said.
Their days are getting longer too. When the Russians used mainly missiles to bomb Ukraine, the unit commander said, the air alerts would last about six hours. “Now, it’s around 12 or 13 hours,” he said.
Vitaliy is confident in front of his men, declaring that they can handle all that the Russians can fire at them if they get weapons from Western allies. “Our guys could even deal with 250 drones [in a night],” he said.
But air defence can only do so much. Ukrainians will continue to suffer until Russia stops its invasion and its air assaults on cities.
Viktoria says their lives are now divided into before and after their daughter's death. They are staying with a friend after the destruction of their flat; she said they sleep in the corridor at night to shelter from the constant drone attacks.

“Of course it’s exhausting,” she said. “But it seems to me it makes people even more angry, irritates and outrages them. Because people really cannot understand, especially lately, those attacks that hit peaceful houses.”

“I don't understand at all why this war started and for what,” Maria’s father, Volodymyr, told the BBC. “What sense does it make? Not from an economic perspective, nor human, territorial - people just die."

“It’s just some ambitions of sick people.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jyrn4z1gko
 
I appreciate the sentiment, but is there actual proof of this? You do recall there were talks to happen back then, at a specific location.
Proof of what?
I don't dispute that the talks took place.
I am also willing to believe the Russians might have agreed to sign "peace" - although there are conflicting accounts of that.

What is obvious is that this would not have brought any lasting "peace", but another attack in a few months or years.

If your neighbor attacks you out of greed and you give them free stuff while further handicapping yourself - they'll be back. Because why wouldn't they?
 
Putin has been crystal clear that this Russian government's policy is that Ukraine is not a legitimate state, and Ukranian not even a legitimate nationality.

And Russia is now doing this because 1) the US must leave Europe, and 2) NATO must boot out all member states who joined from 2004 onwards (which in combination would end NATO) – and what is happening to Ukraine right now is how Russia has decided to respond to the US and NATO not obliging on point 1 and 2.

It's just that – like with Trump – loads of people keep supplanting what he is actually saying, and demanding, with whatever stuff they come up with that they think sound better and would like him to somehow have said.

It's weird and dangerous.
 
I think the Russian leadership has already realized that countries like Poland will not return to Russian bloc and that NATO is not a threat. These demands are too ridiculous and were probably just a distraction.

Russia's general goal is likely the "normalization" of Ukraine, ensuring that its government is directly controlled by Moscow (see Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968) and normal people would be forced to emmigrate.. Ukraine has been framed as the enemy, and most efforts in recent years have focused more on terrorism against Ukraine than on benefiting Russia. The large-scale war is probably a miscalculation by Putin. Ukraine was expected to be conquered as Crimea or Donetsk. Those around him either do not want to lose their positions or actually believe in the great vision of leader. Putin is likely disillusioned or senile.

There was a call between Trump and Putin. I don’t think Trump ordered Putin to stop, but he probably did not fully agree with Putin's demands. Judging from Russian propaganda claims that the call didn’t happen. While Trump may not be an ignorant idiot as he sometimes appears, he's an unpredictable factor Europe should not depend on. Polish PM Tusk has launched an initiative to set up European alliance to maintain support for Ukraine.
Too small, too late. Thats the definition of international help to Ukraine. But there is still hope.
 
Last edited:
It may well be Trump thinks he spoke to Putin on the phone , while he actually didn’t.

He does not know his behind from a hole in the ground after all.
 
Am I naive to think that Trump is the only US president "crazy" enough to let Ukraine become nuclear? I speculate that a "normal" US president will sabotage the facilities.

Does Ukraine even have the engineering and economic capacity to become nuclear within four years?
 
It certainly has the capacity to create dirty bombs within months, like any other developed country with nuclear plants.
The nuclear bomb would be overkill.
 
Anyone that can operate a nuclear plant can make a nuclear weapon, especially if it only needs to be tossed over the border.

The problem (normally) is the delivery system, that's why you see those endless tests from N. Korea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom