Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

MuFc_1992 said:
But wouldn't turning this into Putin's Afghanistan cause casualties to skyrocket? I can also see Putin getting frustrated and using tactical Nukes if this drags on. I also don't see any deterrent against him using Nukes in Ukraine as it wouldn't result in MAD.
Click to expand...

Depends how you perceive "Putin's Afghanistan", I guess. As a failed protracted war or literally a decade long resistance? I don't think even the biggest optimistic would say that the Russian economy will last in this form of isolation for another decade, or that Putin will last that long either. And Ukraine is receiving way more help than Afghanistan was.

Also the longer this drags on, the more aggressive Putin is getting, but also the bigger the damage to the Russian economy and the more active the West gets at sending help. Would you have said a week ago that NATO would be sending anti-tank, anti-air missiles and even fighter jets to Ukraine?
 
rpitchfo said:
it’s reasonable to change the constitution your country was founded upon…knowing Russia won’t be happy to stop there. Are you a Russian bot?!
Click to expand...
Insofar as NATO goes, that is reasonable. I said I don't agree with "blocs" as it is too broad (they should be free to pursue EU membership).
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is not reasonable :lol:.

The 'separatists' (read criminals) barely control 1/3 of the two republics and they want the whole region? They also killed innocent people in that plane years ago, so they should not be given anything. The two regions also have all of Ukraine's gas reserves conveniently to make sure Russia keeps an iron fist around Europe's throat for its energy needs.

And bloody hell, how backwards do you have to be to talk about the human cost when Putin the terrorist is killing those civilians. Thinking like this, let's give away all of Europe to Putin, so he doesn't decide to bomb us all.

He should be made to pay for his war, one way or another.
 
Revan said:
However, I do not think that is in cards. Russians still haven't used thermobaric weapons for example, so going to nukes doesn't seem reasonable. An Aleppo-fate for Ukrainian cities is very much on the cards though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think Putin would ever use Nukes because despite being a greedy feck that loves money and loves power, he also does love the ideal of Russia. I don't think he would openly risk obliterating Russia in a nuclear war, it's all bullying tactics, flexing his muscles at the Western World.

He will however attempt to flatten cities using regular means. The longer this plays out the less likely Russia wins imo, I think they were expecting to be able to do a fast run and take Kyiv quickly and end the war before it's even begun.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.
Click to expand...

you’re right, giving Russia exactly what they want without just cause would end the war (for now)…I’ll give you that.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).
Click to expand...


According to my theory, anyone who accepts security guarantees from the country that twice ignored them to chip away at your territory and then launch a full scale invasion, is worse than criminally stupid. They would be a complete traitor.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).
Click to expand...


All three points involve a capitulation to Putin's demands, so none of them are even remotely reasonable, especially given the looming reality on the ground that Putin has not been successful in his military campaign at a time when the Russian economy is about to implode.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.
Click to expand...
That's the dumbest post I've read here all fortnight.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.
Click to expand...
When its the other way around, you're all politics over realpolitik.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.
Click to expand...

I don't know man, only capitulation is offered so far so maybe let's not rush that far ahead eh?
 
MuFc_1992 said:
But wouldn't turning this into Putin's Afghanistan cause casualties to skyrocket? I can also see Putin getting frustrated and using tactical Nukes if this drags on. I also don't see any deterrent against him using Nukes in Ukraine as it wouldn't result in MAD.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't the Soviet Union use nukes in Afghanistan?

A good counter offer would be to give UN/NATO approved guarantees of non-hostility to russians in Donetsk-Lugantsk, to host a referendum in Crimea, plus 5-10 years of neutrality (which is what they need to get into NATO anyway) . That plus sanctions lifting is something Putin could sell if he wanted to. Spoiler: He won't.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.
Click to expand...

Absolute garbage. Just complete nonsense. Stop.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.
Click to expand...
:lol:

I mean wtf does this even mean. Ukraine gets invaded, civilians get killed and as punishment Putin gets official recognition for Crimea, gets his buffer zone, gets all of Ukraine's gas reserves and you think that's reasonable?

This is without even mentioning Russia are not even asking for half, let alone all, of Ukraine. Prolonging this conflict is not good for Russia because China will start getting very tetchy with the looming food crisis.

Why give Putin his easy and quick win? He's basically proceeding as if his 'special military operation' was a full success.
 
The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.
 
hellhunter said:
Accepting those terms would be complete betrayal of the people who gave their life to defend Ukrainian independence.
Click to expand...
If the alternative is Russia eventually taking Kiev (which is an eventual inevitability) and scores more Ukrainians dying, then unfortunately I don't see there being much of a choice.

If Ukraine keeps its independence despite the Russian onslaught (albeit with the aforementioned concessions), then I wouldn't say that they fought and died for nothing.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).
Click to expand...


How long does it take to join Nato? Take the deal to end the war and then join anyway before he can mount another attack. Not like Putin has ever respected any agreement he's made.


Also, the fact he is offering such generous terms at this stage shows how badly this invasion is going for them.
 
Eurotrash said:
The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.
Click to expand...

If he is unsuccessful in winning the war, he won't have any leverage to claim any wins, at which point the his only "win" would be the survival of his regime in Russia. NATO & EU know this.
 
Last edited:
Eurotrash said:
The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.
Click to expand...

Of course the costs are unbearable on the long run. But I am not sure it is new. They were negotiating before. And they haven’t really backed down on anything so far.
 
Eurotrash said:
The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if they can't come to a reasonable position and the costs escalate each day for them more than they do for Ukraine then there's no need to rush to a deal. Agree on Crimea but should be under the conditions that @Revan proposed, a referendum under UN/outside supervision. Then for Donetsk and Luhansk I think Ukraine's position should be that they retain sovereignty over those territories but with levels of autonomy afforded to them.
 
MuFc_1992 said:
I'd take that deal tbh
Click to expand...

Why?? It's a terrible deal. Russia gets everything they wanted and Ukraine nothing. It's basically capitulation. Considering how the war is going, I'd bet Ukrainians feel fairly confident about defending from Russians. If I were Ukrainian, the only thing negotiable in that deal is Crimea.
 
Eurotrash said:
The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is a democracy, the President can't just give away regions. But he can offer a referendum for Crimea, which would likely go Russia's way. Luhansk and Donetsk would be more tetchy, maybe semi-independence can be offered via constitutional change.

However the "blocs" thing is a no-go. Ukraine as a country must retain the right to join EU at the very least, if not NATO too. Otherwise there's no one guaranteeing their safety. Russian safety guarantees are not worth the paper they're written on.
 
Eurotrash said:
The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.
Click to expand...
No way Crimea satisfies Putin. He'd want the entire coastline.
 
MadMike said:
Ukraine is a democracy, the President can't just give away regions. But he can offer a referendum for Crimea, which would likely go Russia's way. Luhansk and Donetsk would be more tetchy, maybe semi-independence can be offered via constitutional change.

However the "blocs" thing is a no-go. Ukraine as a country must retain the right to join EU at the very least, if not NATO too. Otherwise there's no one guaranteeing their safety. Russian safety guarantees are not worth the paper they're written on.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it looks like EU won’t be offering them membership anytime soon. (I Hope I am wrong)

It’s looking increasingly like they will have to defeat Putin militarily, no matter the costs or the timeline, in order to get their true independence.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).
Click to expand...

That's reasonable I guess if it means stopping the war and at not destroy all big East cities resulting in many civilian casualties...
 
MadMike said:
That's not in their current demands as per Kremlin spokesman though.
Click to expand...
It’s never been an official demand. But you can read it between the lines of Putin’s invasion speech. And you can see the strategy. They (Putin and his regime) want the entire coastal area between Crimea and Russia.
 
Jotun said:
Why?? It's a terrible deal. Russia gets everything they wanted and Ukraine nothing. It's basically capitulation. Considering how the war is going, I'd bet Ukrainians feel fairly confident about defending from Russians. If I were Ukrainian, the only thing negotiable in that deal is Crimea.
Click to expand...

Considering how the war is going? You mean the thousands of deaths, before Russia have even started using their full arsenal? I don't think they feel confident at all, I think they feel proud. And willing. They know Russia will eventually take the capital, and/or up the ante in regards to what kinds of weapons are in play. Ukraine won't back down, but I don't think that's because they're confident about their defense at all.
 
Skåre Willoch said:
Considering how the war is going? You mean the thousands of deaths, before Russia have even started using their full arsenal? I don't think they feel confident at all, I think they feel proud. And willing. They know Russia will eventually take the capital, and/or up the ante in regards to what kinds of weapons are in play. Ukraine won't back down, but I don't think that's because they're confident about their defense at all.
Click to expand...
I’d argue otherwise. It seems their plan is working perfectly. From day one the idea floated around was for them to frustrate Russia and stretch it out so the cost became unmanageable. Even if Russia takes Kiev so what? The war isn’t over and they don’t have the troops to keep what they have. It honestly looks as if the long term game theory into seeing Ukraine survive is not to give up anything
 
VorZakone said:
But Crimeans and those in the separatist regions don't want to live under Ukrainian rule, if I'm not mistaken? It is what it is...
Click to expand...
Nobody asked them anything.

Crimeans had a bogus referendum. But most likely, they'd prefer being in Russia, although who knows after sanctions really hit home. LNR and DNR didn't have even a bogus referendum if I recall, just basically imported Russian soldiers and started fighting against Kiev.

Ukraine might cede Crimea, but DNR and LNR considering they were controlling most of the regions in the conflict? Never. The war will drag on, Russian positions will get worse and worse. Logistics harder and harder. If I'm Ukrainian my counter offers is: Russia completely withdraws, cedes Crimea and recognizes LNR and DNR as Ukrainian territory and Putin resigns.

As a bystander, I'm now leaning more towards Ukraine achieving its goals via war rather than Russia. Of course, the cost would be huge.
 
It is better for Ukraine and all of us if Putin loses this war, though the cost may be great.
 
Are Russia, China and India playing the game that they have the populations to survive a nuclear war? Russia with its space and China and India with vast, vast populations?

Western powers are based around centralised cities, does that make them easy targets?
 
Eurotrash said:
The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.
Click to expand...

And how does the West sell a 'win' if it as much gives a Ukrainian telephone box to Putin? The sanctions are have neither deterred or halted Putin who has us over a barrel. 700,000 of those everyday bought and paid for by Biden.

Whatever happens now means backing down in some way or else thousands more will needlessly die.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
Are Russia, China and India playing the game that they have the populations to survive a nuclear war? Russia with its space and China and India with vast, vast populations?

Western powers are based around centralised cities, does that make them easy targets?
Click to expand...
No rational leader would play that game, because the leaders are some of the people most intensely targeted by nuclear strikes, so they're unlikely to survive themselves. Also I would rate the US' survivability at least the same as Russia's.
 
Jotun said:
If I'm Ukrainian my counter offers is: Russia completely withdraws, cedes Crimea and recognizes LNR and DNR as Ukrainian territory and Putin resigns.
Click to expand...
If you're gonna propose completely unrealistic scenarios during negotiations, you might as well not show up at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.