|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Croatia9538 Posts
On August 31 2024 00:00 Manit0u wrote:
I think that there can't really be any kind of peace there. Either Russia beats Ukraine and it gives up or Ukraine beats Russia and it withdraws to pre-2014 borders.
The first option is pretty bad for the Baltics because they're next on the list. The second one might actually lead to a complete fall of Russia and it splitting into independent republics.
Everyone knows that there can't really be any form of "peace" talks with Russia because it doesn't mean shit for them and they'll just invade again in a few years.
History is full of examples where there are no "winners" in a war, and where both sides agree to stop fighting because it's too damn expensive (both in monetary sense and in human lives). South vs North Korea is but one example.
Also, the talking point that there can be no peace talks with Russia because they'll just re-invade again, so the only solution is for Ukraine to kick Russia out of its borders, is repeated often, but it doesn't really make much sense. Russia can try to invade again even if Ukrainian kicks them to their pre-2014 borders.
But anyway, all of this was addressed in the video. Recommended watch.
|
On August 31 2024 02:21 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2024 00:00 Manit0u wrote:
I think that there can't really be any kind of peace there. Either Russia beats Ukraine and it gives up or Ukraine beats Russia and it withdraws to pre-2014 borders.
The first option is pretty bad for the Baltics because they're next on the list. The second one might actually lead to a complete fall of Russia and it splitting into independent republics.
Everyone knows that there can't really be any form of "peace" talks with Russia because it doesn't mean shit for them and they'll just invade again in a few years. History is full of examples where there are no "winners" in a war, and where both sides agree to stop fighting because it's too damn expensive (both in monetary sense and in human lives). South vs North Korea is but one example. Also, the talking point that there can be no peace talks with Russia because they'll just re-invade again, so the only solution is for Ukraine to kick Russia out of its borders, is repeated often, but it doesn't really make much sense. Russia can try to invade again even if Ukrainian kicks them to their pre-2014 borders. But anyway, all of this was addressed in the video. Recommended watch.
It should also be mentioned that so far, Russia hasn't really shown anything close to a willingness to actually productively talk about peace.
Multiple times in this war, they have used peace talks as a weapon. Either for propaganda, or to stall for time while they prepare something
And as far as i know, the current Russian stance is: "Ukraine needs to leave all of the territories we have claimed, at which point negotiations can start." Which isn't really a "we want to talk about peace" position", it is a surrender demand. "We can start negotiating once you have given up any leverage you might hold" isn't really a valid position to have.
Regarding your final point, that isn't actually true. If Russia loses decisively, that means that Ukraine is free of territorial conflicts and can join defensive treaties like Nato. Which it almost certainly will immediately want to do. And that means that Russia cannot reinvade in 5 years.
Furthermore, if Russia loses decisively, it probably won't want to just go again in 5 years. And the Russian regime probably wouldn't survive in its current for anyways.
|
On August 31 2024 02:21 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2024 00:00 Manit0u wrote:
I think that there can't really be any kind of peace there. Either Russia beats Ukraine and it gives up or Ukraine beats Russia and it withdraws to pre-2014 borders.
The first option is pretty bad for the Baltics because they're next on the list. The second one might actually lead to a complete fall of Russia and it splitting into independent republics.
Everyone knows that there can't really be any form of "peace" talks with Russia because it doesn't mean shit for them and they'll just invade again in a few years. History is full of examples where there are no "winners" in a war, and where both sides agree to stop fighting because it's too damn expensive (both in monetary sense and in human lives). South vs North Korea is but one example. Also, the talking point that there can be no peace talks with Russia because they'll just re-invade again, so the only solution is for Ukraine to kick Russia out of its borders, is repeated often, but it doesn't really make much sense. Russia can try to invade again even if Ukrainian kicks them to their pre-2014 borders. But anyway, all of this was addressed in the video. Recommended watch. Kicking out Russia opens up the possibility of joining NATO.
While Russia keeps adding "you can't join NATO" to its 'peace offers'.
|
|
|
United States43991 Posts
Seems very plausible. Blue on blue has been a massive problem for Russia in this war with countless friendly fire incidents during missile strikes. Ukraine has been assisted somewhat by literally not having jets in the sky during missile attacks. But now that has changed they have the same challenges that Russia have.
|
On August 31 2024 00:48 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2024 00:02 Simberto wrote:On August 30 2024 22:37 zeo wrote:On August 30 2024 12:13 Gahlo wrote:On August 30 2024 11:13 cel000 wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
Elsewhere in the war, Russian troops continue to push toward the key logistics hub of Porkrovsk with growing indications that Ukrainian resistance in the area is melting away, according to the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). thewarzone.
Both twz and ISW show a clear pro-Ukrainian bias and that is what they are saying. It is hard for me to understand how can anyone see with optimism Ukrainian actions and situation.
I wonder if the whole Kursk offensive was just to gain support from the next US administration. (And after that, what? The West providing the weapons and Ukraine the cannon fodder?) How would that make any sense? Trump isn't going to stop his pro Russian lean because of ground Ukraine makes and the Democrats, at worst, will see Ukraine as a way to slowly bleed Russia. Ukraine doesn't need to be "winning" for that, just lose slow enough. Being pro peace does not mean that he leans pro Russian, it means that he leans towards peace. I think the above poster is implying that Kiev might be blackmailing NATO into helping them more by bringing themselves to the point where NATO needs to go in. Both Russia and NATO have been careful to control the escalation so they still have room to maneuver and leave options open. Compare both of them to Israel that went all-in right from the start and now are backed into a corner where they have to keep going all in but it does nothing and makes the situation worse. Russian stooges like you continue to try to paint being for Russia (or for Ukraine surrendering) as pro-peace. I am pro peace. Peace would be immediately achievable if Russia just left. But i am not pro surrendering to Russia to achieve that peace. Being against sending weapons to Ukraine is not pro-peace. It is pro-Russia winning the war. The "peace" Russia tends to offer is basically always just a Ukrainian surrender. Like the insanely silly armistice proposals that start with "First you give up all the land we want, retreat from your lines, and then we can start talking about peace". Lasting peace in europe can only be achieved if Russia loses this war. Else, Putin will just attack or bully the next country. He has been doing this shit continously for 20 years now, every escalating further. Why can we not be pro peace and demand that Russia goes home? Being against sending weapons to Ukraine and not prolonging a lost war is a pro-peace stance. As a few posters on here have gladly stated they would be more than happy to have every single Ukrainian on the territory under the control of the Kiev government die if it can hurt the Russians even a little bit more. For me this isnt a pro-peace position to have but thats just my opinion. With the collapse of the south Donetsk front over the last few weeks we have come to the point where the first time in ten years that the Ukrainians haven't randomly shelled the civilian population of Donetsk and this came about not because the Kiev militants just came to the realization that that is a bad thing. No, they were forced to move their artillery back. For ten years they have been terrorizing the people of Donetsk, by now its obvious that they are not just going to leave their homes that they have fought for nor will the many other people living in Ukraine that don't want to live under the current Kiev government give up hope. A Nazi collaborator LARPer doesnt get to decide for them who is Ukrainian and who isn't. Weather you like it or not there will be peace at some point, we cannot now turn back time to 2014 and stop the coup and later war from happening. The damage was done, but wounds heal, even if someone tricks you into cutting off your own leg - life goes on.
Those Donetsk people are there because they came there from Russia. The area was overrun by Russian miners in the 60s and 70s. They didn't belong there, they came to make money. Same with the Russians in Crimea or the British in Northern Ireland. When the majority of the people spoke Russian, they started to look down on the native Ukrainian people there.
A lot of Ukrainian people have now left the area, since they're afraid to live under a dictatorship regime. That has only tilted the balance. Yet you speak of 'keeping the peace' as if the Russian invaders belong there. As if the Ukrainians should give up on their generational homes. As if Russia doesn't own enough land and resources yet (and has the most pathetic returns of any country in the history of mankind when it comes to welfare).
|
On August 30 2024 22:37 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2024 12:13 Gahlo wrote:On August 30 2024 11:13 cel000 wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
Elsewhere in the war, Russian troops continue to push toward the key logistics hub of Porkrovsk with growing indications that Ukrainian resistance in the area is melting away, according to the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). thewarzone.
Both twz and ISW show a clear pro-Ukrainian bias and that is what they are saying. It is hard for me to understand how can anyone see with optimism Ukrainian actions and situation.
I wonder if the whole Kursk offensive was just to gain support from the next US administration. (And after that, what? The West providing the weapons and Ukraine the cannon fodder?) How would that make any sense? Trump isn't going to stop his pro Russian lean because of ground Ukraine makes and the Democrats, at worst, will see Ukraine as a way to slowly bleed Russia. Ukraine doesn't need to be "winning" for that, just lose slow enough. Being pro peace does not mean that he leans pro Russian, it means that he leans towards peace. I think the above poster is implying that Kiev might be blackmailing NATO into helping them more by bringing themselves to the point where NATO needs to go in. Both Russia and NATO have been careful to control the escalation so they still have room to maneuver and leave options open. Compare both of them to Israel that went all-in right from the start and now are backed into a corner where they have to keep going all in but it does nothing and makes the situation worse.
Unless Trump is going to force Russia into not presenting nonsense terms, "pro peace" in this conflict is being pro Russia. Don't see how Russia and Israel's positions in their conflicts are that varied outside of nobody is properly backing not-Israel. Yes, I know Hamas is funded by Iran, but I don't count them as significant in this.
|
On August 31 2024 00:00 Manit0u wrote:
I think that there can't really be any kind of peace there. Either Russia beats Ukraine and it gives up or Ukraine beats Russia and it withdraws to pre-2014 borders.
The first option is pretty bad for the Baltics because they're next on the list. The second one might actually lead to a complete fall of Russia and it splitting into independent republics.
Everyone knows that there can't really be any form of "peace" talks with Russia because it doesn't mean shit for them and they'll just invade again in a few years.
Unless you think of Israel-Egypt in 1973.
By the way, "the Baltics" means WW3, do you really think NATO would not respond to that invasion?
|
On August 30 2024 15:28 Falling wrote:
It's moves and counter moves. Ukraine perhaps hoped to draw off the attack in the south by attacking Kursk. Russia perhaps decided they can slow down the advance and play for time around Kurk by throwing new recruits at the Ukrainians and keep slamming their main offensive in the south. And then maybe Ukraine also saw Kursk as another location they could trade losses much more favourably (rather than run into heavily mined terrain) as well as stick a fork in Putin's nonsensical 'you give us land we have not been able to conquer in exchange for us ceasing to invade your for five years when we've had enough time to build up again' "peace" aka capitulation plan.
Things don't look good in the south, which likely means Ukraine will have to do something more there. Wars are composed of multiple attempts to spoil the other side's plans. But you cannot always force the enemy to respond as you would like.
Could also be to show the West that Russia's red lines are toothless.
Those new recruits are defending their country, Russia has been invaded (without declaration of war), isn't that their duty? and "trade losses" looks like a strategy for defeat. What country did US invade 5 years after Iraq? If you cannot win, what are you fighting for?
What if in 5 years, (10, maybe?) Ukraine decides to invade Moldova or Belarus, to "compensate"? Do you know who is going to be in power in Ukraine in 5 years?
Egypt-Israel, 1973. Instead of NATO weapons, NATO money, garanties and an international agreement.
From the beginning we know those red lines are not serious... until they are.
User was banned for this post.
|
On August 31 2024 10:55 aseq wrote:
Those Donetsk people are there because they came there from Russia. The area was overrun by Russian miners in the 60s and 70s. They didn't belong there, they came to make money. At least in Europe most people don't say things like this - "you don't belong here as your ancestors came here less than 70 years ago", do they?
They don't say this even about people who came 10-20 years ago, it's considered to be all kinds of politically incorrect.
|
On August 31 2024 18:39 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2024 10:55 aseq wrote:
Those Donetsk people are there because they came there from Russia. The area was overrun by Russian miners in the 60s and 70s. They didn't belong there, they came to make money. At least in Europe most people don't say things like this - "you don't belong here as your ancestors came here less than 70 years ago", do they? They don't say this even about people who came 20-30 years ago, it's considered to be all kinds of politically incorrect.
Yeah true but I think the point is that the migrant are not claiming the land they own for their origin country. Of course in Europe we are leaving in the tiny historical island of stability since the dictatorships are gone.
|
On August 31 2024 18:59 0x64 wrote:
Yeah true but I think the point is that the migrant are not claiming the land they own for their origin country. Of course in Europe we are leaving in the tiny historical island of stability since the dictatorships are gone. Ah, in that meaning - yes, of course.
These migrants do belong there, but this should not change which country owns that land.
|
|
|
On August 31 2024 18:59 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2024 18:39 ZeroByte13 wrote:On August 31 2024 10:55 aseq wrote:
Those Donetsk people are there because they came there from Russia. The area was overrun by Russian miners in the 60s and 70s. They didn't belong there, they came to make money. At least in Europe most people don't say things like this - "you don't belong here as your ancestors came here less than 70 years ago", do they? They don't say this even about people who came 20-30 years ago, it's considered to be all kinds of politically incorrect. Yeah true but I think the point is that the migrant are not claiming the land they own for their origin country. Of course in Europe we are leaving in the tiny historical island of stability since the dictatorships are gone.
You could say that some dictatorships still remain (Orban, Lukashenka) but the region has been mostly stable when countries figured out that cooperation is more profitable than war.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 03 2024 05:06 pmp10 wrote:In somewhat related news: Putin visits Mongolia without fear of arrest.Sizable blow to legitimacy of ICC, but for now an isolated case. The really big question is if any ICC members from the global south will do the same.
Well, Mongolia beeing completly surrounded by Russia and China doesnt make it an easy arrest, how would they even transport him out of there if they did capture him?
The only reason Putin even dared to visit them was because of the location.
|
|
|
Interesting wave of resignations and removals within the Kiev government these days.
Submitted resignations:
- Deputy Prime Minister Vereshchuk
- Minister of Strategic Industry Kamyshin
- Minister of Justice Maliuska
- Minister of Ecology Strelec
- Head of the State Property Fund Koval
Fired:
- Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba ('resigned')
- Deputy Head of Zelensky's Office Rostyslav Shurma
Removed from office:
- Chief of Staff of the Unmanned Systems Forces Command Roman Gladkyi
There are a few more coming aparently and a few of these positions could be purged altogether. Generally a few of them were looking to buy out of the money laundering schemes but it could be a sign of Zelensky being forced to share power. Will be interesting to follow.
Also an ongoing purge within the army looking for 'ties to Russia'
|
On September 04 2024 16:07 zeo wrote:
Interesting wave of resignations and removals within the Kiev government these days.
Submitted resignations:
- Deputy Prime Minister Vereshchuk
- Minister of Strategic Industry Kamyshin
- Minister of Justice Maliuska
- Minister of Ecology Strelec
- Head of the State Property Fund Koval
I’ve read it’s just a cabinet reshuffle. Most of these people will be part of the new governement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
