Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
What kind of a peace deal you're advocating I wonder.
The kind where both parties sit down, negotiate, and reach an agreement. You know, basic negotiation stuff, instead of just shooting at each other.
That already happened. In 1994 and 2014. Russia broke their promises. Why would Ukraine sit down with Russia to ratify another agreement which Russia will soon break? Can’t make deals with deal breakers. Shooting may stop today but it will start again in the near future, on Russia’s terms and will likely result in the dissolution of the Ukrainian state.
And 2008 in Georgia
There's clearly no point in negotiating with Russia while Putin is in charge. He has no respect for International Law or agreements. And I doubt he'd agree to anything that involves Russia leaving southern Ukraine. The most likely outcome is Russia would regroup, rearm and invade again in another 5 or so years to try to seize more territory.
So what would it achieve?
With Russia keeping occupied territory I reckon.
Yep I don't see anything positive for Ukrainians coming from talks with a scumbag like Putin.
But many wars eventually end with negotiations anyway. I don't see this war ending in complete defeat of either Ukraine or Russia.
Negotiations are likely but still far away as both sides try to improve their situation on the battlefield.
Besides, scumbag or not, Ukraine was in fact negotiating with Putin early after the invasion.
A major struggle point is Western security guarantees. Without it, Ukraine indeed fears that Russia will just regroup and come back later and won't make the same mistakes again (this was said by a Ukrainian negotiator).
A major struggle point is Western security guarantees. Without it, Ukraine indeed fears that Russia will just regroup and come back later and won't make the same mistakes again (this was said by a Ukrainian negotiator).
If I was Ukrainian I'd be scared shitless at the prospect of an incoming Trump administration.
They do but as stated earlier what's the point of negotiating with a regime that rarely if ever keeps their word and has already invaded your country twice?
One (or both?) of those times after signing a agreement to not attack them.
Do Ukraine just have to accept that every 5-10 years Russia will come back and take another bit of their territory?
I believe there was a provisional agreement brokered which Putin rejected. Someone can correct me if that's inaccurate.
What I mean is that Ukraine were willing to start negotiations with Putin. Him being a scumbag didn't deter that. And seemingly after Bucha, there were still negotiating attempts.
But yeah, unfortunately it does seem that there's this threat of Russia doing their invading thing every once in a while. Unless the West can give security guarantees, or Russia suffers immense casualties that risk state collapse and they realize it just isn't worth it anymore.
The Soviets eventually left Afghanistan. The Americans eventually left Vietnam, and so did the French before.
There is a scenario possible where Russia retreats for political/economic reasons. But we're not there yet.
Russia can recruit many volunteers by paying high salaries. That money funnel hasn't been squeezed yet by Western economic pressure.
There is a scenario possible where Russia retreats for political/economic reasons. But we're not there yet.
Russia can recruit many volunteers by paying high salaries. That money funnel hasn't been squeezed yet by Western economic pressure.
With Russia keeping occupied territory I reckon.
It's up to both sides to reach the best possible deal. As far as I'm concerned, any deal that eliminates the risk of nuclear war and stops the indiscriminate killing of civilians should be taken.
And I'm sure the Ukrainian side will be absolutely thrilled and brimming with optimism thanks to your online support lolz
Well you always have to keep channels open incase Russia ever decide to be reasonable.
I think this shit only ends when Ukraine join NATO. But that can't really happen until this shit ends. Which is Putins plan basically in my opinion.
In my mind there are only 3 ways this could end quickly.
NATO fast track Ukraines membership and give Russia a deadline for vacating Ukranian territory. Ukraine to abandon the occupied territories to Russia forever. Russia decide themselves to feck off back to their own territory and stop invading other countries.
None of those options seem likely for obvious reasons, so I imagine this will continue for years yet.
Do you believe that should be how states operate?
What's stopping any powerful state from basically invading whoever they want, killing civilians and then saying, "Why are you not open to negotiations? Let me annex whatever I want or it's your fault your people are dying. Why are you against negotiating??"
Does your logic extend to the World Wars too?
Why don’t you ask that question in the Israeli thread, and maybe you’ll get the actual practical answer instead of a theoretical answer,
Exactly you don't have an answer, so why should we give up and stop fighting for our sovereignity?
I think I gave you a pretty clear answer! You're just refusing to accept it. Are you Ukrainian by the way?
He’d have been an absolute hit in 1940
Born in Ukraine, English father, Ukrainian mother, moved to UK from a very young age. Ukrainian wife, so I spent large parts of my free time in Ukraine prior to everything going to shit.
Got it. I'm sorry for your plight, and I think you much more at stake than most keyboard warriors here.
I believe the West has led Ukraine down the primrose path by putting NATO on the table and raising the stakes in the Cold War with Russia. Of course, I'm not condoning Putin's invasion for a second, but the West has promised Ukraine things it cannot deliver, and it's been a catastrophe for the Ukrainian people. The main constraint for Western support isn't funding; it's armaments. For example, Ukraine uses the PAC-3 Patriot interceptor in a month at the same rate the US manufactures in a year. The 155-millimeter artillery shells have backorders exceeding five years. While the US plans to produce 100,000 artillery shells per month by the end of 2025, Russia currently produces close to 500,000 a month, at 1/10 the cost. The US (and Europe) don't produce sufficient weapons to support Ukraine, Israel and potentially Taiwan - a reality more critical than political resolve or financial aid. And the slow response of Western manufacturers has allowed Russia to develop effective countermeasures for example the WSJ had a recent article basically saying that Russian electronic warfare has rendered many Western precision weapons, such as the Excalibur artillery round and Himars missile system, largely ineffective by disrupting their guidance systems.
At the end of the day, the aid package is not going to fundamentally change the reality on the battlefield. Munitions and manpower are crucial in warfare, and Ukraine is very limited in both. Regardless of how many checks Congress writes, we are constrained in what we can supply. Russia has the upper hand due to its superior production of armaments and larger manpower. Thus, this conflict should have never been allowed to happen, but it did, and now Ukraine will face the most severe consequences. Western politicians will wear Ukrainian flag pins and shout "Slava Ukraine," but these are empty gestures that require no real sacrifice. At the end of the day they all return to the comfort of their suburban homes with 2.5 kids and two cars, without any true skin in the game, while your country is devastated, with large portions of the population forced to flee, having lost everything.
Childish comment. As expected. And of course you didnt answer the part about occupied territory.
According to Orban Trump's peace plan is great - to pressure Ukraine to sit on a negotiation table and probably agree to whatever Putin asks. Reaching a 'best possible deal' with a country which has occupied about a third of your territory and is killing your civilian population daily is a tough task.
Russians claim Ukrainians dont want to talk about a peace deal, the next day they bomb a children hospital.
The pro-Putin view that sells the idea that peace is only possible if Ukraine capitulates to Putin's demands are unable to process the idea that Ukrainians want to be a free, and not subservient to a totalitarian, fascist dictatorship.
Unfortunately I wouldnt be surprised if Trump will just stop giving even a dime to Ukraine once he becomes a president so they wont have any otner choice, which will make pro Russian bots here happy like pigs in the mud.
The Ukrainians are already getting massive support that was passed a couple of months ago. There is still the $300b of frozen Russian assets that the EU controls, which Trump can't affect. That could probably get Ukraine through an entire 4 year term of a hostile US President, at which point Putin's own ability to fund the war would diminish.
Also if Ukraine doesn't fight the oppression and crack down on the Ukrainian nation would be horrific following capitulation. Ukraine's resources would be stolen and pocketed by Putin and people would run to the west to avoid being mistreated and abused as underlings.
Hopefully the F16's start to make a big difference.
Hopefully the F16's start to make a big difference.
Great stuff.
What's your best case scenario, @Raoul - lay out the path to peace or victory for us. Be as detailed and realistic as possible, because all I hear from you is cheap demagoguery ('pro-Putin this, and Kremlin bootlicker that) and nothing substantive.
Why would ukraine make a deal with a party that continuously breaks deals? You need to explain why you think any deal reached now would different. If you can't, then the suggestion of a deal is just silly.
Why don't you? and remember be as detailed and realistic as possible, because all I hear from you is that Ukraine should roll over and give in.
Victory is to get Putin out of Ukraine, so he a) can't use it as a staging point to press further into Europe and in the process start WW3 with NATO, and b) allow the Ukrainians the ability to democratically decide their own fate instead of having it imposed on them by a neighboring fascist, dictatorship.
This is why its highly irresponsible to make any claims that giving Putin a chunk of Ukraine would pacify him, when he's clearly only going to use it to regroup and consolidate for a couple of years, before pushing further west.
Last edited:
The annexation of Crimea in 2014 being the proof of this.
Putin's in his 70s now. Not sure he has the luxury of playing the long game on this one.
No, those children died because of Westerners expressing support for Ukraine online. Apparently.