EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 800
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
Falling
Canada11381 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23517 Posts
On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote: Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
In the interim, it only takes a few of Europe’s big military hitters to have more pro-Russian, or at least anti-intervention governments to come in and that considerably upends the apple cart. There’s no guarantee that the broad receptiveness to intervention holding in such a scenario either. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11381 Posts
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always. That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger. Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure. Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out. You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. | ||
|
Billyboy
1344 Posts
On April 24 2025 04:58 Simberto wrote: 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? Starts as A and ends as B with one of his very few but repeated ad nauseam arguments crowbarred in. Highly strange that the benefit of the doubt many posters are willing to give someone who is so unkind to basically everyone other than his other personalities, who he compliments way to frequently for having the best ideas. This is simply terrible strategy, unless you believe that this is a proxy war by evil westerners. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23517 Posts
That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler + Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance? Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always. That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger. Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure. Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out. You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler + (like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11381 Posts
Ukrainian boys are being drafted into the Russian army. Guess who's cannon fodder next go around now that the prisons have been emptied. Ukrainian businesses are seized by the Russian colonists without compensation. While they have their Ukrainian identity suppressed and kidnapped Ukrainian boys and girls are 'adopted' out to Russian families. What is the price of freedom? I don't know. But as long as the Ukrainians are willing to pay it, I think we should support them. Sometimes a people are willing to lose their lives for something greater than themselves. It was true for the founding of America. This looks to me as the second founding of Ukraine- a Ukraine free of Russian domination. The alternative is Belarus or Chechyna. And the next generation of Ukrainian boys will be the first to be harvested for the Russian warmachine to save Moscow families and the urban core from the horrors of their government's bloody policy. By all means let us surrender the Ukrainians to feed the future Russian warmachine with more meat for the meat grinder, blood for the blood god. I will note that your view maps on exactly to Trump's, so there's that. He's just out there saving lives, I guess. What a guy. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17556 Posts
On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote: Is it buying you time? That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance? Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always. That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger. Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure. Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out. You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. I think you can just use democracies without exceptions for USA (since according to the democracy tracker they'll be removed from the list of democratic countries next year if they keep doing what they're doing). Anyway, in my opinion as it is neither Ukraine nor Russia is able to "win" this war by military means. Drones have pretty much invalidated tanks and apcs so you don't really have any linebreaker units. The war has devolved into WW1 style of trench warfare with pretty much static lines. You can't really break that without significant air superiority and neither country can achieve that because air is expensive and anti-air is cheap in comparison. Even if other countries were to put boots on the ground there it probably wouldn't achieve much considering how entrenched both sides are. As I see it the war has pretty much changed into a static grind and it'll be decided by whose economy can last longer (and I think here time is on the Ukraine's side if EU can keep the aid going). In the end the loser will be forced to make concessions after diplomatic actions. Best case scenario here is that Russian economy implodes, they won't be able to continue the war and capitulate. After that they'd most likely be forced to cede any occupied territory and also got war reparations forced upon them as the aggressor in the conflict which would prevent them from scaling back up for another go for decades. All in all I think there's hope for Ukraine, maybe even a way for them to regain their territories without having to fight over every inch pushing the Russians out. Edit: And there are incentives for Western countries to aid Ukraine beyond just keeping Russia at bay. The restoration efforts after the war will be worth bajillions in lucrative cleanup and construction contracts. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
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. Are you unfamiliar with WW1? | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9144 Posts
On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler + (like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. No GH, that's precisely the problem and the point of contention. They need this implemented rather than just based on assumptions and vibes. There were two proposed implementations, European peacekeeping troops stationed in Ukraine and security guarantees from a coalition led by France and UK. Russia opposed both of those, that's why this deal that isn't a deal was never exepected to be accepted. | ||
|
Legan
Finland524 Posts
On April 24 2025 14:52 KwarK wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. Are you unfamiliar with WW1? Do you mean the hundred-day offensive that had over a million casualties on both sides, or the following Meuse–Argonne offensive that had over a hundred thousand casualties on both sides? Maybe you mean the civil unrest and eventual uprising in Germany, but that is probably not it, as there is little of that going on in Russia, and it would be weird to expect that when people in general are really unlikely to risk things even in places that do not have a tyrannical government. Surely, one can hope that the Russian army and economy nearly collapse thanks to the strikes against oil refineries and ammunition depots, but there are huge risks that it takes too long or that the collapse ends up being too chaotic. There is no guarantee that it will happen or that a massive offensive is unnecessary. Of course, the same goes for any temporary ceasefire or more permanent peace deal. Making a deal while strengthening Ukraine is also risky. Maybe Russia attacks again against remilitarized Europe. Maybe they strengthened their side to prevent Ukraine from getting the land back. Maybe the European economy will suffer too much damage from the trade war, and support for Ukraine will decrease. We can't know how things will end up. The two major problems with the current approach to making a deal are that the USA is unwilling to increase pressure on Russia if it does not make concessions for an agreement, and that the USA is reluctant to continue supporting Ukraine. Surely boots on the ground, etc., would be good, but it would probably limit Ukraine's ability to start new offensives later without risking war escalating to being NATO-wide. If Ukraine got even half a year of relative peace to train recruits and stockpile equipment, their ability to defend and perform offensives would be much greater. Unfortunately, the USA is not trying to get anything from Russia, and Russia is not in a hurry to stabilise, as the USA is will most likely pull support anyway. Making a deal is not the main problem. The problem is how people are going about making one. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10134 Posts
On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler + (like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one. Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole. And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend. But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist? Yeah, they are. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10825 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
But hey if we push a peace deal on Ukraine and end the war, thereby removing the immediate need to do something, surely then the EU will finally take up its responsibility and act... I'd call it wilfully ignorant. | ||
|
Vivax
22106 Posts
| ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1003 Posts
Again, Putin's money going to great use. If the Russians were as good at actual warfare as they are at hybrid war they'd be in Lviv by now. GreenHorizons is someone I've been observing across these threads but never really engaged because they seem like a very stereotypical and extremely entrenched in their opinions which they get from a very well known tankie set of beliefs, mostly "America bad, west bad", it's as tiresome as it is old, I mean, again, in this thread when confronted with the hypocrisy of his opinions on Gaza vs Ukraine he immediately went, without clearly stating it into "America staged a violent coup against a legitimate president Yanukovych" who ordered snipers to shoot at protestors, fled to Russia and left a trove of loot that would put a king to shame behind. Pure Russian propaganda. Next he'll explain how "the West" promised never to admit any more countries to NATO and how Russia has a right to their sphere of influence... If you ever wonder what his opinion on anything is you can just go to social media of guys like Roger Waters, even the smugness and holier then thou attitude is the same. As someone from a country that was invaded by a larger neighbor after a breakdown of a larger federal state I am always appalled by these types giving absolute 0 agency to the people of the countries invaded, no, US didn't need to stage shit, Ukrainians wanted to be with the west because they have eyes, ears and access to the internet, they could see that EU is a vastly better option, they can see their neighbors to the west prospering while Russians and Belarus folk still, in large percentages don't have indoor plumbing or paved roads. But Chomsky and Sachs told him that these countries are just playthings manipulated by the big bad West, so he's here to tell Ukraine to capitulate and be happy with trading 100.000 + of their soldiers and civilians for losing parts of their country and another invasion at a later date when Russia gets to recover and pillage what they got. Shameful, really. Maybe try cosplaying a person with empathy for a change buddy. EmpathyHorizons sounds kind of cool. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote: This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one. Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole. And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend. But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist? Yeah, they are. I think GH is well-versed in history and knows the USSR and all the other iterations of the Russian empire were just as imperialist and awful as the existing hegemony. I think its more so that he views the economic/class system pushed by the current hegemony as too broken to support and there is value in rolling dice again. However, most other "west bad" people truly don't know the USSR heavily utilized ethnic cleansing and hardcore imperialism while forming their empire. The formation of the USSR was like Israel vs Palestine cranked up 10x. I don't think this is unknown to GH. Instead, I think it doesn't change the fact that the current world order is critically bad to him and we may as well try something else. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my impression of our conversations. When the existing system is critically bad, its our duty to prioritize the long-term human condition by ripping off bandaids right away rather than polishing a turd. | ||
|
Billyboy
1344 Posts
On April 25 2025 00:03 Mohdoo wrote: I think GH is well-versed in history and knows the USSR and all the other iterations of the Russian empire were just as imperialist and awful as the existing hegemony. I think its more so that he views the economic/class system pushed by the current hegemony as too broken to support and there is value in rolling dice again. However, most other "west bad" people truly don't know the USSR heavily utilized ethnic cleansing and hardcore imperialism while forming their empire. The formation of the USSR was like Israel vs Palestine cranked up 10x. I don't think this is unknown to GH. Instead, I think it doesn't change the fact that the current world order is critically bad to him and we may as well try something else. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my impression of our conversations. When the existing system is critically bad, its our duty to prioritize the long-term human condition by ripping off bandaids right away rather than polishing a turd. I think you are mistaken. Based on his commentary I believe he thinks most of what you said is capitalist propaganda. The same way he believe Maduro is a good socialist leader that helps the people and that China isn't committing genocide with the Uighurs or in Tibet that those are just capitalists being re-educated. No matter how rude, condescending or as the poster above eloquently described his behavior many people make excuses for him because he is "far left" and they see themselves as left so believe if he is far left he must be good. Also the condescension and big vocabulary seem to trick people into thinking he has something insightful to say, but sadly it is the same couple of tropes repeated over and over with him claiming and tough question is in "bad faith" or whatever. It becomes awfully tiring. | ||
|
Billyboy
1344 Posts
“He keeps pounding Zelenskyy and saying it’s harder to deal with him than it is with Putin,” Hume said. “Putin, so far as I can tell, hasn’t agreed to much of anything except, yes, he’d love to annex Crimea, which is part of the proposal that’s before him now. That’s no concession. All that is, is taking a gain.” “Zelenskyy resists that because Crimea, up until the Russians invaded it 10 years or so ago, was part of Ukraine,” Hume continued. “So, I’m not exactly sure what the president’s talking about when he says that Zelenskyy has been more difficult to deal with than Putin.” “There’s been a series of ceasefire proposals,” Hume added. “Putin either hasn’t agreed to them or has immediately broken them. I’m not sure what concessions Putin will ever be willing to make.” Basically, yeah Putin agrees with you giving him everything he wants and making no concessions. Trump is really like a child with no understanding of how to make a deal. | ||
|
Copymizer
Denmark2101 Posts
| ||
| ||
