|
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. |
On April 23 2025 23:20 Jankisa wrote:
So under the latest, this time "take it or leave it" Trump / Witkoff / Putin proposal Ukraine gets the few sqare miles of Kherson Russia controls, the "border" is set at the current lines and they "get" to maybe join the EU, deffinately not NATO and as a cherry on top of the cake they get to share power from Zaporizhzhia nuklear facility with Russians but the plant would be under Ukrainian control.
It's hard to see Russia agreeing to that without a massive carrot somewhere else.
That's far too good a deal for Ukraine given their position.
|
On April 24 2025 03:02 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2025 23:20 Jankisa wrote:
So under the latest, this time "take it or leave it" Trump / Witkoff / Putin proposal Ukraine gets the few sqare miles of Kherson Russia controls, the "border" is set at the current lines and they "get" to maybe join the EU, deffinately not NATO and as a cherry on top of the cake they get to share power from Zaporizhzhia nuklear facility with Russians but the plant would be under Ukrainian control.
It's hard to see Russia agreeing to that without a massive carrot somewhere else. That's far too good a deal for Ukraine given their position.
That's a terrible deal for Ukraine. What are you talking about?
|
If the US simply continued its support, Ukraine was almost guaranteed to win. Conservative estimates suggest that Russia should run out of military equipment by the end of this year or summer next year at the latest. If the US put more pressure on China, Russia would also quickly run out of their long range munitions. They source some 80% of critical components for such weapons from China.
Let's hope Europe steps up even more. Ukraine can still win this war.
|
Guess Europe needs to deal with this now. I didn't want this to happen but we need to become the adult in the room, create a real European army, throw the Americans out of European bases and arm Ukraine to the teeth with everything they need.
|
While it is hard to see how Ukraine would perform such an offensive that they would regain areas, this proposal is a disaster. Trump is really eager to lift sanctions that could be used to pressure Russia. Sanctions have lost some of their effectiveness as everyone has adapted to them, but accepting the idea of giving up land to a winner of a war will undermine the idea of a rule-based world order. In future, it will be much easier for others to argue that their ability to take land from others is all the justification they need. Considering Trump's idea regarding Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza, it seems that he already thinks this way. The same idea is apparent in the treatment of NATO allies, trade partners, and political opposition. Others are to buy protection and yield to the USA.
Extending the war in the hope that Russia will run out of equipment is still a risky option. Putin and Russia would have even less to lose if the frontline or the economy collapsed. The situation would be very chaotic. Even petty revenge is not out of consideration at that point.
|
Ukraine does not need to stage an offensive. It can keep destroying Russia's munition storages, logistics, and oil infrastructure. Russia will eventually collapse either militarily or economically. Europe should increase the economic pain by stopping Russia's shadow fleet.
|
On April 24 2025 03:56 maybenexttime wrote:
Ukraine does not need to stage an offensive. It can keep destroying Russia's munition storages, logistics, and oil infrastructure. Russia will eventually collapse either militarily or economically. Europe should increase the economic pain by stopping Russia's shadow fleet.
I agree, Russia is so large it is hard to defend it all. More drones and longer range missiles, plus more economic pain. A media offensive about how much support Ukraine is getting plus how it is going to last at least the next decade would also make the Russian populace get scared. Lots of recent conscripts joined thinking they would get the big money and not even need to fight.
|
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them?
|
On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them?
At least Russia can finish the De-Nazification then...
You're just stuck in your Russian feed where you think Russia will win easily without US support. They won't, they barely take any land with massive losses. They are losing, it is just slow.
|
On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them?
You should be consuming less Russian propaganda, comrade.
|
On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I love how your here saying Ukraine should surrender to its genocidal neighbour and just accept the beating, praying that a constantly weak Europe will start WW 3 for them when Russia inevitably tries to grab the rest 10 years from now, but in the US thread your constantly going on about the horrible support for genocide from the democrat voters and that the people of the US should absolutely not accept the lesser evil and instead rise up in a bloody revolt to fight against that capitalist overlords.
Those positions seem entirely at odds with each other.
|
On April 24 2025 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I love how your here saying Ukraine should surrender to its genocidal neighbour and just accept the beating, praying that a constantly weak Europe will start WW 3 for them when Russia inevitably tries to grab the rest 10 years from now, but in the US thread your constantly going on about the horrible support for genocide from the democrat voters and that the people of the US should absolutely not accept the lesser evil and instead rise up in a bloody revolt to fight against that capitalist overlords. Those positions seem entirely at odds with each other.
You're soooo close to getting it.
You've noticed a clear contradiction in the positions of those that subscribe to lesser evilism.
It also highlights a contradiction between what people believe Ukrainians should do vs what they believe people in the US should do when faced with having a government that's too friendly with Putin.
|
On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them?
Should Palestine take a horseshit deal with Israel and cede land to them because it's a lesser evil than being destroyed?
|
On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them?
What deal? Cede territory with no security guarantees isn't a deal. This isn't designed to be accepted.
Beyond that, it's basically teaching a dog that biting your ankle equals food. There's zero foresight.
On April 24 2025 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I love how your here saying Ukraine should surrender to its genocidal neighbour and just accept the beating, praying that a constantly weak Europe will start WW 3 for them when Russia inevitably tries to grab the rest 10 years from now, but in the US thread your constantly going on about the horrible support for genocide from the democrat voters and that the people of the US should absolutely not accept the lesser evil and instead rise up in a bloody revolt to fight against that capitalist overlords. Those positions seem entirely at odds with each other. You're soooo close to getting it. You've noticed a clear contradiction in the positions of those that subscribe to lesser evilism. It also highlights a contradiction between what people believe Ukrainians should do vs what they believe people in the US should do when faced with having a government that's too friendly with Putin.
I don't get what it has to do with lesser evil. In both cases not taking the stupid action is the lesser evil.
|
On April 24 2025 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I love how your here saying Ukraine should surrender to its genocidal neighbour and just accept the beating, praying that a constantly weak Europe will start WW 3 for them when Russia inevitably tries to grab the rest 10 years from now, but in the US thread your constantly going on about the horrible support for genocide from the democrat voters and that the people of the US should absolutely not accept the lesser evil and instead rise up in a bloody revolt to fight against that capitalist overlords. Those positions seem entirely at odds with each other. You're soooo close to getting it. You've noticed a clear contradiction in the positions of those that subscribe to lesser evilism. It also highlights a contradiction between what people believe Ukrainians should do vs what they believe people in the US should do when faced with having a government that's too friendly with Putin.
It is becoming really hard to tell with you. Are the positions you are argueing for your own, or are they some kind of didactic attempt to teach others?
|
On April 24 2025 04:50 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? What deal? Cede territory with no security guarantees isn't a deal. This isn't designed to be accepted. Beyond that, it's basically teaching a dog that biting your ankle equals food. There's zero foresight. Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I love how your here saying Ukraine should surrender to its genocidal neighbour and just accept the beating, praying that a constantly weak Europe will start WW 3 for them when Russia inevitably tries to grab the rest 10 years from now, but in the US thread your constantly going on about the horrible support for genocide from the democrat voters and that the people of the US should absolutely not accept the lesser evil and instead rise up in a bloody revolt to fight against that capitalist overlords. Those positions seem entirely at odds with each other. You're soooo close to getting it. You've noticed a clear contradiction in the positions of those that subscribe to lesser evilism. It also highlights a contradiction between what people believe Ukrainians should do vs what they believe people in the US should do when faced with having a government that's too friendly with Putin. I don't get what it has to do with lesser evil. In both cases not taking the stupid action is the lesser evil.
Violently overthrowing Yanukovych instead of working within their flawed democracy was the initiating "stupid action" over the lesser evil choice that has unquestionably resulted in far worse quality of life for countless Ukrainians, especially the casualties.
Reducing the violence to a negative peace with this deal is far from ideal, it's just the obvious lesser evil to the "stupid action" of continuing the immediate and ongoing death and destruction of Ukrainians that would stop immediately under the negative peace deal. A deal that would result in immediately and dramatically improving the quality of life for countless Ukrainians, even if it doesn't turn out to be permanent.
|
On April 24 2025 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:50 Dan HH wrote:On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? What deal? Cede territory with no security guarantees isn't a deal. This isn't designed to be accepted. Beyond that, it's basically teaching a dog that biting your ankle equals food. There's zero foresight. On April 24 2025 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I love how your here saying Ukraine should surrender to its genocidal neighbour and just accept the beating, praying that a constantly weak Europe will start WW 3 for them when Russia inevitably tries to grab the rest 10 years from now, but in the US thread your constantly going on about the horrible support for genocide from the democrat voters and that the people of the US should absolutely not accept the lesser evil and instead rise up in a bloody revolt to fight against that capitalist overlords. Those positions seem entirely at odds with each other. You're soooo close to getting it. You've noticed a clear contradiction in the positions of those that subscribe to lesser evilism. It also highlights a contradiction between what people believe Ukrainians should do vs what they believe people in the US should do when faced with having a government that's too friendly with Putin. I don't get what it has to do with lesser evil. In both cases not taking the stupid action is the lesser evil. Violently overthrowing Yanukovych instead of working within their flawed democracy was the initiating "stupid action" over the lesser evil choice that has unquestionably resulted in far worse quality of life for countless Ukrainians, especially the casualties. Reducing the violence to a negative peace with this deal is far from ideal, it's just the obvious lesser evil to the "stupid action" of continuing the immediate and ongoing death and destruction of Ukrainians that would stop immediately under the negative peace deal. A deal that would result in immediately improving the quality of life for countless Ukrainians, even if it doesn't turn out to be permanent.
Ukraine can only win by Russia giving up on the war. Russia can only win by beating Ukraine totally.
Right now Russia is running out of tanks and apcs, and the average age of their soldiers are pretty far above 50+. They have no options for maneuver warfare left. Sure, maybe Ukraine could collapse completely but it's very unlikely even without US aid given that Russia can't make sweeping advances.
On the other hand of course Ukraine can't take back the occupied parts of their country. But they can wait.
Russia is running their economy into the ground (interest rate at 21%, inflation at 10% despite that, sovereign wealth fund projected to run out at the end of the year and massive budget deficits, a bank sector with very precarious loans to the military industrial complex and drone strikes that actually impact their economy).
The soviet union broke on Afghanistan. The US broke on Afghanistan. Ukraine is in a FAR better position than Afghanistan ever was against much tougher opponents. How much does Russia have the stomach for when the economic reality starts setting in?
If Ukraine keeps fighting it's because they feel they can get a MUCH better deal by waiting. And they likely can too.
In fact if Trump didn't win I expect the war would be over by now because no way Russia looks at 2-3 more years of this shit and thinks it's something they want. Russia has a lot of things to lose yet.
|
The idea that Ukraine can just slowly destroy Russian equipment and facilities, but doesn't need to ever make a push to regain land, seems really odd. If Russia is willing to send a massive number of soldiers to gain just a little more land, it is absolutely ready to send twice as many to hold the same amount of land, even without any weapons. Is Russia going to come to table and say that they pull back without Ukraine having to test their defenses? Or are they going to do a strategic retreat just because? Without the frontline collapsing totally, every kilometre will be fought for and cost Ukraine manpower in the same way. This is a huge cost to the people of Ukraine, and considering their problems with getting new recruits, not so many are willing to pay the price. If the USA were not siding so heavily with Russian views and were ready to support Ukraine in the future, agreeing to some deal for now could help them to keep fighting even harder in the future. The way these deals are being done currently is just the worst possible.
Also, are we sure that Ukraine can keep conducting those attacks deep into Russia without the support of the USA? If the USA's support were not critical, surely they would have told Trump that he could cut it. There seems to be a belief that Europe and Ukraine can keep things going without problems. This, however, is in direct conflict with NATA having to make a 5- to 10-year plan for the USA, leaving Europe. The belief that Ukraine will win if it just keeps making things more costly to Russia and there is no huge risk seems pretty wishful at this point.
Ultimately, Ukrainians will make the decision. It would just be good if we could talk about the related issues with the war without constantly chanting loyalty pledges and accusing people of siding with Russia. For example, the support packages will absolutely be included silently in the national debt while using the debt as a reason to cut public spending, but being worried about how effective the package or war strategy is gets you easily accused of not supporting Ukraine enough. This is especially annoying when other issues with the same arguments, like defending Western values and fighting against genocide, get so little support.
|
On April 24 2025 05:35 Legan wrote:
The idea that Ukraine can just slowly destroy Russian equipment and facilities, but doesn't need to ever make a push to regain land, seems really odd. If Russia is willing to send a massive number of soldiers to gain just a little more land, it is absolutely ready to send twice as many to hold the same amount of land, even without any weapons. Is Russia going to come to table and say that they pull back without Ukraine having to test their defenses? Or are they going to do a strategic retreat just because? Without the frontline collapsing totally, every kilometre will be fought for and cost Ukraine manpower in the same way. This is a huge cost to the people of Ukraine, and considering their problems with getting new recruits, not so many are willing to pay the price. If the USA were not siding so heavily with Russian views and were ready to support Ukraine in the future, agreeing to some deal for now could help them to keep fighting even harder in the future. The way these deals are being done currently is just the worst possible.
Also, are we sure that Ukraine can keep conducting those attacks deep into Russia without the support of the USA? If the USA's support were not critical, surely they would have told Trump that he could cut it. There seems to be a belief that Europe and Ukraine can keep things going without problems. This, however, is in direct conflict with NATA having to make a 5- to 10-year plan for the USA, leaving Europe. The belief that Ukraine will win if it just keeps making things more costly to Russia and there is no huge risk seems pretty wishful at this point.
Ultimately, Ukrainians will make the decision. It would just be good if we could talk about the related issues with the war without constantly chanting loyalty pledges and accusing people of siding with Russia. For example, the support packages will absolutely be included silently in the national debt while using the debt as a reason to cut public spending, but being worried about how effective the package or war strategy is gets you easily accused of not supporting Ukraine enough. This is especially annoying when other issues with the same arguments, like defending Western values and fighting against genocide, get so little support.
To be crass Ukraine has a manpower problem and Russia has a money problem. The main problem for Russia isn't that they can't recruit troops it's the cost of it and that their warmachine is eating their economy.
If Russia goes on the defensive losses on both sides go down but it's not like they can disband half their army and stop building weapons. You still have to man the entire line and even if Ukraine doesn't attack everywhere they would have some divisions attack weak points. Failure to defend adequately leads to things like Kursk.
I have a hard time seeing how Russia going on the defense indefinitely is not good for Ukraine, they will save far more manpower than Russia saves money.
Also how do Russia threaten EU when the war is active in Ukraine? If anything the longer they are there without winning the more time for rearment we have in the short term?
And medium term the more their economy suffer the less of a threat they are?
And long term the low birthrate this is causing is a huge problem?
As for deep strikes, oil refineries are on maps and satellite pictures and they don't really move...
|
On April 24 2025 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:50 Dan HH wrote:On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? What deal? Cede territory with no security guarantees isn't a deal. This isn't designed to be accepted. Beyond that, it's basically teaching a dog that biting your ankle equals food. There's zero foresight. On April 24 2025 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I love how your here saying Ukraine should surrender to its genocidal neighbour and just accept the beating, praying that a constantly weak Europe will start WW 3 for them when Russia inevitably tries to grab the rest 10 years from now, but in the US thread your constantly going on about the horrible support for genocide from the democrat voters and that the people of the US should absolutely not accept the lesser evil and instead rise up in a bloody revolt to fight against that capitalist overlords. Those positions seem entirely at odds with each other. You're soooo close to getting it. You've noticed a clear contradiction in the positions of those that subscribe to lesser evilism. It also highlights a contradiction between what people believe Ukrainians should do vs what they believe people in the US should do when faced with having a government that's too friendly with Putin. I don't get what it has to do with lesser evil. In both cases not taking the stupid action is the lesser evil. Violently overthrowing Yanukovych instead of working within their flawed democracy was the initiating "stupid action" over the lesser evil choice that has unquestionably resulted in far worse quality of life for countless Ukrainians, especially the casualties. Reducing the violence to a negative peace with this deal is far from ideal, it's just the obvious lesser evil to the "stupid action" of continuing the immediate and ongoing death and destruction of Ukrainians that would stop immediately under the negative peace deal. A deal that would result in immediately and dramatically improving the quality of life for countless Ukrainians, even if it doesn't turn out to be permanent.
You seem to be defining "lesser evil" to mean prioritizing the short term and there's no reason to do that, there's no such implication in the term. It just means least bad of multiple shitty options.
People explained to you why in their opinion capitulation with no guarantees is the shittier option so telling them that's the "obvious lesser evil" makes no sense. Obviously you can disagree with them, but your argument is basically that you have final say on what is the objectively worse option and that their differing preference somehow undermines the whole concept of wanting things to be less shitty rather than more shitty? This only works if they had agreed with your premise which they obiously don't, hence the replies.
These are strange and unnecessary word games.
Edit: I think I understand the point you are trying to make, you are saying people are more likely to support a 'long shot' in faraway places where other people die for the potential good ending, whereas they'd rather not rock the boat in their vicinity. Which is true, but you can just say that directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
