| 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. | ||
|
pmp10
3378 Posts
On May 12 2025 06:21 ZeroByte13 wrote: Unless both parties believe they will benefit from this more than the other side. That's the only way this will work. Nothing will be signed unless both sides think that the next war will go in their favor. Moreover, any such 'deal' must give both Putin and Zelensky a political face-saver. Hard to see Turmp or his people working out something like that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22029 Posts
On May 12 2025 06:48 0x64 wrote: If Russia wants out all they need to domis go home and this war ends.Well, Russia wants out as it is too costly and they can't rearm fast enough, while Ukraine, could be interrested in security guarantees like being let into NATO. War ends... but some end of war just prepare bigger wars behind so no one is celebrating. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8230 Posts
On May 12 2025 05:57 pmp10 wrote: Negotiations could freeze the fighting at current lines. Nobody expects them to produce more than a time out for a few years. That's a no-go for Ukraine, as Zelenskyy have stated repeatedly. It just leaves Russia able to go back and rearm and invade a few years later | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1016 Posts
On the other hand, yeah, Ukraine won't get security guarantees but it will, 100 % get the time to fortify their lines, this time without drones and artillery raining on them, it will give them the time to further develop their military industrial complex and start exporting their weapons to very willing buyers in EU and beyond. Of course, Russia will get the same benefits, but I don't think many countries will be willing to cooperate on weapons manufacturing and procurement like EU will with Ukraine, so to me from a re-armament perspective Ukraine has the edge. They also have the edge in the ability to fortify the line of contact and re-organize internally, obviously if they go for the frozen conflict they would be paying for that with a lot of their territory but it might be worth it given how devastated those areas are after these 3 years. What I've seen the negotiations are supposed to be based on is the proposal from April 2022 when there was a lot of focus on Ukrainian army limitations, numbers of troops, tanks, airplanes etc. I don't think that's going to fly anymore, since it would be straight up suicidal for Ukraine to agree to and Ukraine was in a much worse situation at the time (before they drove the invaders out of the area around their capital and way before they pushed them out of Kharkiv and Herson). | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17575 Posts
On May 12 2025 22:14 Jankisa wrote: I don't think the current situation is as black and white as: "Russia benefits from a frozen conflict because they have the time to re-arm" because they have a lot of downstream effects, managing all these veterans won't be easy, selling the public on this being a victory is going to be hard, having the political will to go for round 2 after all these people come home and start telling their stories might be even harder, even in Russia. On the other hand, yeah, Ukraine won't get security guarantees but it will, 100 % get the time to fortify their lines, this time without drones and artillery raining on them, it will give them the time to further develop their military industrial complex and start exporting their weapons to very willing buyers in EU and beyond. Of course, Russia will get the same benefits, but I don't think many countries will be willing to cooperate on weapons manufacturing and procurement like EU will with Ukraine, so to me from a re-armament perspective Ukraine has the edge. They also have the edge in the ability to fortify the line of contact and re-organize internally, obviously if they go for the frozen conflict they would be paying for that with a lot of their territory but it might be worth it given how devastated those areas are after these 3 years. What I've seen the negotiations are supposed to be based on is the proposal from April 2022 when there was a lot of focus on Ukrainian army limitations, numbers of troops, tanks, airplanes etc. I don't think that's going to fly anymore, since it would be straight up suicidal for Ukraine to agree to and Ukraine was in a much worse situation at the time (before they drove the invaders out of the area around their capital and way before they pushed them out of Kharkiv and Herson). Russia will go into round 2 for sure if they're allowed to rearm. They don't really care if they'll ruin their own country in the process, for them it's an existential crisis. This war has been going on since 2014 and so far Russia has broken every single ceasefire/peace agreement there was. | ||
Falling
Canada11382 Posts
100 % get the time to fortify their lines Freezing at the current border seems like a recipe for disaster no matter how much you fortify. Last time they only had Crimea and Belarus to flank. The next time Russia will have a far broader front to invade from. If Russia kept Luhansk and the most easterly part of Donetsk drawing straight down from Luhansk (following the path of closest river), but gave up everything else including Crimea, (and go back to the leased port agreement- although like in Syria, Russia may have burnt that bridge to go back to that), then Ukraine would have a more defensible border they could fortify. But given Russia is still demanding Ukraine demilitarize and are demanding to have veto power over Ukrainian foreign policy, any ceasefire without security guarantees is a momentary pause for Russia to build back up for round two or is it three now? Remember, Russia was not so prepared for Chechnya 1.0. They learned and came back, finishing the job. Ukraine has to avoid the fate of Chechnya if they are to have any hope of solidfying their reforms for a more free and transparent government/society. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7021 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22029 Posts
On May 14 2025 18:23 Harris1st wrote: Which is why Russia has 'the UA can't make defensive agreements' as a basis for any peace deal.But with an "official" peace time between now and Russias next "Special Operation", UA can use the time to enter a defense agreement with Western countries. AFAIK one part preventing them from joining NATO is because they are in an active war right now. That wouldn't be the case then | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7021 Posts
On May 14 2025 18:32 Gorsameth wrote: Which is why Russia has 'the UA can't make defensive agreements' as a basis for any peace deal. And how would they enforce this? By starting a special operation? UA will break that "agreement" any day of the week IMO | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22029 Posts
On May 14 2025 18:36 Harris1st wrote: Yes, Russia attacks. The war is back on, the defensive agreement is again off the table.And how would they enforce this? By starting a special operation? UA will break that "agreement" any day of the week IMO And before you say 'secret agreement, don't announce until its signed', there are Russian allies in both NATO and the EU. And if other countries want to sign a defensive pacts without said Russian allies being involved then they can already do that today. The key thing to remember about defensive agreements is that no one actually wants to go to war with Russia. Countries will only be willing to sign up Ukraine if they are convinced that Russia will actually not attack anymore. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1016 Posts
Also, I don't think Chechnya is a valid comparison, it's a much, much smaller country than Ukraine, it had basically 0 allies during the 2 wars and it's population is around 1/140th of Russia while Ukraine is around 1/4. Obviously I would be ecstatic if Russians withdrew to 2014 lines, gave up on annexations of the regions they did and agreed to something that would be a good deal for both them and Ukraine, unfortunately I don't think that is realistic. I believe both sides have been, for a very long time in a negotiating posture of only ever signaling their maximalist goals, which makes sense, I really, really hope that something comes out of negotiations tomorrow and the next days, even if it's imperfect and leaves the possibility or Russia re-starting hostilities at a later date, because I firmly believe that Ukraine will bounce back much more strongly then Russia will. I understand that is based an huffing a lot of hopium and my admiration for what I've seen so far from Ukranians, but I think if they get 4-5 years of peace they could not only make themselves an impossible target but they could also wait Putin out, Russia is not a country full of happy people, they are super repressed and I think trying to go for round 2 would be hugely unpopular. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22029 Posts
Security guarantees are 100% required for Ukraine, for obvious reasons. They might be willing to give up a small amount of land if they in return become as safe as a neighbour of Russia can be. So long as Russia demands that Ukraine remains open for future invasion there can be no peace. So long as Russia demands more territory then they current hold, there will be no peace. And with Trump in the WH and various Russian favoured parties doing well throughout the EU I don't think Russia is in any hurry to give up on Ukraine. The only way I see Russia dropping their demands is if they physically cannot continue fighting due to a lack of manpower and basic material. And while their economy might be supposedly dying a zombie economy can keep a basic war going far longer then we might like. | ||
|
Yurie
11993 Posts
On May 14 2025 19:00 Gorsameth wrote: Yes, Russia attacks. The war is back on, the defensive agreement is again off the table. And before you say 'secret agreement, don't announce until its signed', there are Russian allies in both NATO and the EU. And if other countries want to sign a defensive pacts without said Russian allies being involved then they can already do that today. The key thing to remember about defensive agreements is that no one actually wants to go to war with Russia. Countries will only be willing to sign up Ukraine if they are convinced that Russia will actually not attack anymore. The last point is actually a good point. If I wanted to fight Russia I could quit my job and join as a foreigner in Ukraine right now. I have no military experience so I would have to find some way to get training as well as some basic equipment, but I could do all of that if I wanted to. Considering I am not doing that right now, how likely is it that I want to get drafted for a future Russian war? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43403 Posts
On May 15 2025 00:23 Yurie wrote: The last point is actually a good point. If I wanted to fight Russia I could quit my job and join as a foreigner in Ukraine right now. I have no military experience so I would have to find some way to get training as well as some basic equipment, but I could do all of that if I wanted to. Considering I am not doing that right now, how likely is it that I want to get drafted for a future Russian war? Not necessarily. Assume that both parties want to avoid a direct war between Russia and, for example, Britain. A war is therefore the result of one party to properly understand where the red line of the other is and to cross it by mistake. It's the issue we had with Hitler where he simply did not believe that Britain would go to war over Poland if presented with a fait accompli. He did not believe Britain because of the betrayal in Munich etc. We could see the same situation again where Russia is successful in Ukraine and believes that NATO will waver over Estonia only to find British resolve firm leading us to accidentally find ourselves in a war both parties would have wanted to avoid. Only by communicating that you're prepared to engage in a broader war through clear deterrence, such as stationing British troops directly on the Ukrainian side of the border with Russia, can an escalation be avoided. By seeking to avoid a confrontation we're inviting a misunderstanding of where our red line is. It's a mistake to assume countries only go to war because they mean to. It's frequently because they were too stupid to work out how not to. | ||
|
Yurie
11993 Posts
On May 15 2025 01:30 KwarK wrote: Not necessarily. Assume that both parties want to avoid a direct war between Russia and, for example, Britain. A war is therefore the result of one party to properly understand where the red line of the other is and to cross it by mistake. It's the issue we had with Hitler where he simply did not believe that Britain would go to war over Poland if presented with a fait accompli. He did not believe Britain because of the betrayal in Munich etc. We could see the same situation again where Russia is successful in Ukraine and believes that NATO will waver over Estonia only to find British resolve firm leading us to accidentally find ourselves in a war both parties would have wanted to avoid. Only by communicating that you're prepared to engage in a broader war through clear deterrence, such as stationing British troops directly on the Ukrainian side of the border with Russia, can an escalation be avoided. By seeking to avoid a confrontation we're inviting a misunderstanding of where our red line is. It's a mistake to assume countries only go to war because they mean to. It's frequently because they were too stupid to work out how not to. I still think the position holds merit. How you do that communication so you do not end up in a war scenario is important. Which means a lot of security guarantees discussed such as signing a document but not placing troops are not acceptable for either party. It increases my risk of being in a war or my country losing credibility due to folding, it also increases the chance Russia invades again to call the bluff. | ||
|
Nezgar
Germany535 Posts
On May 15 2025 01:45 Yurie wrote: I still think the position holds merit. How you do that communication so you do not end up in a war scenario is important. Which means a lot of security guarantees discussed such as signing a document but not placing troops are not acceptable for either party. It increases my risk of being in a war or my country losing credibility due to folding, it also increases the chance Russia invades again to call the bluff. If there is a full scale war between Russia and NATO, you are not getting drafted. If the war has progressed to a point where NATO needs to draft people, something has gone horribly wrong. To say that you don't want to give security guarantees to Ukraine because you don't want to get drafted in case Russia decides to actually go to war seems a bit uninformed - or like an excuse. It also means that Russia can do whatever to any Ally of your country because after all, you don't want to get drafted or see your country go to war. This is not a credible position. | ||
|
Yurie
11993 Posts
On May 15 2025 03:00 Nezgar wrote: If there is a full scale war between Russia and NATO, you are not getting drafted. If the war has progressed to a point where NATO needs to draft people, something has gone horribly wrong. To say that you don't want to give security guarantees to Ukraine because you don't want to get drafted in case Russia decides to actually go to war seems a bit uninformed - or like an excuse. It also means that Russia can do whatever to any Ally of your country because after all, you don't want to get drafted or see your country go to war. This is not a credible position. It is my honest position. I am not willing to fight for my freedom. I am willing to donate much more money and equipment then we are currently doing to Ukraine. I am also willing to finance a security force there, I am not willing to man it. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5727 Posts
On May 15 2025 03:39 Yurie wrote: It is my honest position. I am not willing to fight for my freedom. I am willing to donate much more money and equipment then we are currently doing to Ukraine. I am also willing to finance a security force there, I am not willing to man it. As Nezgar said, nobody is asking you to. NATO countries have large militaries made of professional soldiers. If they were to start drafting people, that would suggest the situation was really dire. You'd probably be far away from your country at that point, considering your position. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 15 2025 03:39 Yurie wrote: It is my honest position. I am not willing to fight for my freedom. I am willing to donate much more money and equipment then we are currently doing to Ukraine. I am also willing to finance a security force there, I am not willing to man it. If getting drafted is actually on the table, getting drafted probably isn’t super high on one’s list of problems. We’d probably be going toe to toe with genocidal aliens or something for that to happen. Less fighting for freedom and more fighting to just survive. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1016 Posts
When that happens, and I'm not a history expert, but in general, every time in history armament happened like this those weapons ended up being used. One country investing heavily in to weapons makes their neighbors do the same, and the cycle goes on, and on, and on. As long as we are in EU and have relatively chill governments, obviously that's not something to worry about here, but nationalism and far right parties are on the rise, unless something radically changes this trend I don't really see this going in a good direction and I'm preparing for the worse. I might be in the more turbulent part of Europe then most of other people I see posting often so that might be what colors my thinking a bit. Trump is an amplifier of this, Russia going into Ukraine is an even bigger, we already have Slovakia, Romania and Hungary basically breaking the unity and siding with Russia, Austria is not far from that, LePen might get in power in France and AfD in Germany, people are becoming more and more susceptible to propaganda and this is going to get supercharged with AI bots and DeepFakes which will basically finish off the process of turning the whole world's information environment into the one Russia has been enjoying, everything is bullshit, everyone's lying to you and the only person you can trust is "the leader" and your country. Again, maybe I'm just a bit depressed by the trends and a bit paranoid, but I've seen unimaginable happen in my country, after 45 years of living in a society with our brothers those same people got into tanks and took up arms and we started killing each other, excuses being nationalism and religion. I don't think nationalism and religion are something that's going to go away any time soon, we don't need aliens. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Classic vs Krystianer
Solar vs TBD
ShoWTimE vs TBD
MaxPax vs TBD
MaNa vs MilkiCow
GgMaChine vs Mixu
SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Cure vs Creator
The PondCast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
DragOn vs Sziky
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
|
|
|
EPT
