|
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. |
United States43361 Posts
On July 06 2025 22:47 Sent. wrote:
No one at the top believes in the Russian collapse copium
Nobody in spring 1918 believed Germany would just give up either. The Russian Empire had collapsed and Germany had received colossal amounts of land and treasure from Russia. The two front war was now a one front war and Germany still occupied the low countries and a sizable chunk of France. The front lines had been mostly static for four years.
Exhaustion happens imperceptibly and then all at once. But if you look at the numbers of vehicles in reserve, rubles in reserve, foreign currency/gold in reserve, artillery in reserve, even men in reserve (signup bonuses are an indicator of how easy it is to replenish losses) we're seeing problems in the future for Russia.
Problems do not necessarily mean collapse. People predicted they would deplete their prewar artillery shell reserve years ago if they continued flattening cities the way they did with Severodonetsk. The prediction was correct, Russia adapted by dramatically reducing their rate of fire and buying tens of millions of shells from NK. When the numbers say that "if they continue on the current course without changing then they will crash" they are not predicting a crash, they're predicting a course adjustment. But course adjustments can only get you so far before you give up on the destination as a whole. If depletion of armour means no more large scale pushes, if depletion of cash means no more subsidizing Russian workers etc. then the goal of conquest of Ukraine may be eroded one course correction at a time.
|
We have no reason to believe Russia is in position comparable to where Germany was in 1918. They're not blockaded and their economy isn't anywhere near 100% of total war mode.
We do want to exhaust Russia but not in the way Germans were beaten in 1918 because that's a completely unrealistic. goal considering the size of Western support so far. We're hoping to repeat something similar to 1905 where Russians chose to give up against Japan because it just wasn't worth it to go all-in for the Far East. Hoping is the key word here because we can't be sure internal tensions in Russia will rise to where we want them. The West is giving Ukraine just enough to hang on. We don't expect them to break through Russian lines with some Leopards and liberate Mariupol.
So yes, our governments believe we can exhaust Russians until they won't be able to continue advancing slowly like they're now. I still think no one expects them to collapse like Germans in 1918. No one expects conditions close to the Treaty of Versailles or even returning Crimea to Ukraine. Of course our leaders can't straight up admit Crimea will stay in Russian hands. That would be idiotic.
|
There will not be a treaty of Versaille because there will be no treaty, Russia isn't going to surrender and no one is going to force them by threatening an invasion of Russia itself.
One day Russia will order the withdraw and once they are back behind their own original border the conflict will effectively end (tho Russia might keep throwing drones regularly for a while to keep up pretences and claim they are not defeated)
Crimea is a different story, its not Russia and its an island. If Russia is forced to withdraw because the war becomes to unsustainable and they have to give up the land bridge Crimea is simply a matter of time. Ukraine blows up the bridge connecting it to the Russian mainland (as they have done multiple times before) and any forces left in Crimea either surrender or are starved out.
|
On July 07 2025 00:50 Gorsameth wrote:
There will not be a treaty of Versaille because there will be no treaty, Russia isn't going to surrender and no one is going to force them by threatening an invasion of Russia itself.
One day Russia will order the withdraw and once they are back behind their own original border the conflict will effectively end (tho Russia might keep throwing drones regularly for a while to keep up pretences and claim they are not defeated)
Crimea is a different story, its not Russia and its an island. If Russia is forced to withdraw because the war becomes to unsustainable and they have to give up the land bridge Crimea is simply a matter of time. Ukraine blows up the bridge connecting it to the Russian mainland (as they have done multiple times before) and any forces left in Crimea either surrender or are starved out.
Could go a few ways this. Yeah, worst case scenario for Russia is they pull back to pre 2022 borders, but with the war effectively continuing. At that point Ukraine will throw everything at the bridge, and Crimea won't stand.
But there's every possibility that Russia tries to go for a deal when they start seeing the bottom of the barrel tho. Perhaps do it through Trump so they can use US as a scapegoat. Or just pull out, pretend Nazism is eradicated, and go for the peace deal with Ukraine. Zelenskyy has stated before he's been willing to give up Crimea for pre 2022 borders after all.
|
a treaty is a possibility for sure, and I could see Ukraine being willing to give up land (even beyond Crimea) if they can get safety as a result (which is why Russia currently keeps demanding a veto power on Ukrainian agreements with 3e parties)
But in my mind a peace treaty is an almost direct admission from Russia that they can't keep going and I don't see the current Russian leadership consider that an acceptable option.
|
Norway28727 Posts
Tbh I'm surprised if Crimea is returned to Ukraine in any remotely foreseeable future. To be fair foreseeable is an extremely vague term in the world we currently live in.
It's just - the world basically accepted Crimea being taken by Russia a decade ago. Reverting that isn't why the war is being fought. I mean, if the US was still interested in defeating Russia rather than weakening Europe, sure, but now, pre-2022 borders seem like the best case scenario.
|
Russia has largely withdrawn from Crimea as far as their navy deployment is concerned. They cannot use it for the purposes they stole it for. I'd say they haven't abandoned it largely because of pride and propaganda reasons.
|
On July 06 2025 20:48 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2025 19:42 0x64 wrote:
5% is just a message to the world that EU will be ready for a war with Russia. Because the clown brigade that Russia is today is not the potential enemy we face in 20 years.
Unless demographics change a lot Russia in 20 years is in a worse spot than right now. Right now they would 100% lose a conventional war against EU/European NATO members members and at 2% spending it is even more certain. The discussion is about how to make Russia certain that Spain and Italy will protect Lithuania if Russia invades it, thus meaning they won't invade. Lowest percentage that achieves that is a good percentage to aim at.
Yes but my belief is that 20 years from now, demographic is less critical, the stronger drone tech and strat will be the winner. And losing this round, makes them also ask how they can be ready for next round.
I just saw the new french rafale, will have a drone jet flying with the jet, taking care of the front line for the pilot and avoid traps. While impressive, it's the army with the low cost tech that will prevails with scale.
|
On July 07 2025 01:18 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2025 20:48 Yurie wrote:On July 06 2025 19:42 0x64 wrote:
5% is just a message to the world that EU will be ready for a war with Russia. Because the clown brigade that Russia is today is not the potential enemy we face in 20 years.
Unless demographics change a lot Russia in 20 years is in a worse spot than right now. Right now they would 100% lose a conventional war against EU/European NATO members members and at 2% spending it is even more certain. The discussion is about how to make Russia certain that Spain and Italy will protect Lithuania if Russia invades it, thus meaning they won't invade. Lowest percentage that achieves that is a good percentage to aim at. Yes but my belief is that 20 years from now, demographic is less critical, the stronger drone tech and strat will be the winner. And losing this round, makes them also ask how they can be ready for next round. I just saw the new french rafale, will have a drone jet flying with the jet, taking care of the front line for the pilot and avoid traps. While impressive, it's the army with the low cost tech that will prevails with scale.
That is effectively what the 6th gen fighter is going to be, yeah. The jet becomes somewhat like a carrier, directing fights from the back, rather than risking themselves at the front. The US and China are also obviously trying to work this out atm. But we are a few years off before this becoming reality. Likely a couple decades. It's still important, because the one thing cheap fpv drones can't do is gain air superiority, and that is still likely to be incredibly important in other near peer battles. Ukraine and Russia is just a bit specific in how both sides has strong anti air but a lacklustre air force, based on early USSR doctrine.
|
On July 07 2025 01:14 maybenexttime wrote:
Russia has largely withdrawn from Crimea as far as their navy deployment is concerned. They cannot use it for the purposes they stole it for. I'd say they haven't abandoned it largely because of pride and propaganda reasons.
They stole it more for the ability to claim black sea gas deposits that were found. If Ukraine was able to keep those they'd be able to sign a Norwegian style deal to get paid and massively lower the leverage Russia had over the EU.
The Chinese investments planned for an Odessa to the Baltic sea rail line expansion would have also cut off Russia from their sweet transit payments from the Chinese.
Russia has largely fixed its demographic issues for now with the kidnapped souls from eastern Ukraine. Taking children by the million only has one real justification.
|
On July 07 2025 00:50 Gorsameth wrote:
There will not be a treaty of Versaille because there will be no treaty, Russia isn't going to surrender and no one is going to force them by threatening an invasion of Russia itself.
One day Russia will order the withdraw and once they are back behind their own original border the conflict will effectively end (tho Russia might keep throwing drones regularly for a while to keep up pretences and claim they are not defeated)
Crimea is a different story, its not Russia and its an island. If Russia is forced to withdraw because the war becomes to unsustainable and they have to give up the land bridge Crimea is simply a matter of time. Ukraine blows up the bridge connecting it to the Russian mainland (as they have done multiple times before) and any forces left in Crimea either surrender or are starved out.
Much more likely is that we see a stop to Russian offensives and reduction in drone/missile/military production. Basically freezing the borders while doing a rocket/drone salvo per month to secure nobody is willing to invest inside Ukraine or put troops there since the war is still "ongoing".
They would claim they have agreed to a cease fire with the US at that point and as long as Trump is in office US sanctions will stop while the war is still slowly going on to keep Ukraine on the back foot.
|
Someone mentioned going back to pre-2022 borders - why would Russia go back to pre-2022 borders though?
I'd think the most realistic scenario is freezing the war at +/- current borders (or rather who controls what land right now).
Russia can't take more land but also Ukraine can't take their land back because attacking is so much harder than defending, and defending is really hard.
I'm probably clueless but I'd expect something like
- stop active large-scale hostilities (no doubt there will be provocations)
- both sides keep what they have at the moment
- internationally nobody acknowledges "new Russian provinces" but Russia doesn't care, and no one can realistically do anything about... so basically Crimea treatment from 2014
- both sides actively prepare for another war which might or might not happen depending on many factors.
- as Yurie said, probably Russia will try to keep the overall situation tense so nobody wants to invest in Ukraine.
|
Russian Federation617 Posts
Unless there is a total USSR-1991 style collapse in Russia, it doesn't pull anything from anywhere. New regions are being heavily integrated into Russian government and economic structure, they received more than 10 billion USD of federal funding in 2023 alone, which is 3 percent of a whole Russian federal budget spending for that year (and that's not including donations from other regional budgets and business investments). You do not invest this kind of money if you're opting to leave.
Best bet for Ukraine, bar the aforementioned total collapse scenario, which I find unlikely, is making the continuing Russian advance too costly and forcing Russia to accept unconditional ceasefire along the existing frontline.
As for NATO increased military spending - unless NATO isn't planning to invade Russia, I see it either as desire to appease Trump, or the attempt to force Russia into arms race, not allowing it to return to peacetime economy, and in doing so, forcing economic crush. Reasoning about defending from Russia makes no sense, because everyone understands that Russia is in no capacity of directly threatening NATO. On the other hand it would provide boost to Kremlin propaganda of the West and NATO being a threat to Russia.
About status of new regions - of course nobody would recognize them internationally, but example of Golan Heights shows that it's not needed. As Drone said above, world basically accepted Crimea being Russian after a decade. Another couple of decades after the war is over, and the same would happen with these regions, especially if some other big conflict will erupt somewhere.
As of why I consider total Russian economical and political collapse unlikely - there are too little efforts made to achieve this by the West. If NATO (and mainly US) would have impose total economic blockade of Russia in 24.02.2022, such as immediate complete cut of trade, bank operations etc., and applying the same sanctions to any country trying to do business with Russia (including China) - that would work. But due to globalization of economy, it would do tremendous damage to NATO itself, and most likely it was determined that Ukraine is not worth the cost. And now, with Russia being able to revert economy to trade with friendly/neutral countries, to develop domestic production of many previously imported goods, to work out gray import and export schemes, I don't see how West can achieve economic damage capable to force a coup/open rebellion in Russia. While shops and supermarkets are full of goods, and there is no mass mobilization, people in Russia will be content with the war, en masse at least.
From the political side of things, after the death of Navalny, there is no figure that can rally pro-western liberals. Navalny's ACFI nowadays totally discredited itself, liberal Russian politicians (Khodorkovsky, Katz, Volkov, Svetov, Navalnaya, etc.) spend as much efforts bickering with each other as on shitting on Putin. On the other hand, far right sight of the spectrum mostly focused on ongoing war with Ukraine, and only organized force in form of Wagner was dismantled, it's leaders played with grenades, all Prigozhin's media empire destroyed. So no threat to Putin from either side.
At the moment I think that both sides believe, that they still have capability to outlast the other, hence no progress in peace talk. I also believe that demands from both sides in June talks (Ukraine - ceasefire on the frontline, no AFU restrictions, no recognition of new regions and Crimea, Russia - AFU withdrawal from all 4 regions, Ukraine's neutral status, recognition of new regions and Crimea) are actual current war goals for both sides, which both will try to enforce, fully or partially. Most likely there would be some compromise found (for example, question of recognition would be moved to an indefinite later date, or Russia will drop demands on Kherson and Zaporozhie territory under AFU control), but this would be achieved in like 1-1,5 years from now on.
|
On July 07 2025 04:15 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Someone mentioned going back to pre-2022 borders - why would Russia go back to pre-2022 borders though?
I'd think the most realistic scenario is freezing the war at +/- current borders (or rather who controls what land right now).
Russia can't take more land but also Ukraine can't take their land back because attacking is so much harder than defending, and defending is really hard.
I'm probably clueless but I'd expect something like
- stop active large-scale hostilities (no doubt there will be provocations)
- both sides keep what they have at the moment
- internationally nobody acknowledges "new Russian provinces" but Russia doesn't care, and no one can realistically do anything about... so basically Crimea treatment from 2014
- both sides actively prepare for another war which might or might not happen depending on many factors.
- as Yurie said, probably Russia will try to keep the overall situation tense so nobody wants to invest in Ukraine.
Russia could decide it's not worth it if Ukraine, for example, pulled off another Operation Spiderweb, expanded its long-range capabilities and started pummeling its oil/gas infrastructure, or gained a sizeable artillery advantage.
|
United States43361 Posts
I somewhat agree, particularly on the NATO/EU not taking steps that would actually cripple Russia due to the impact on cost of living and politicians prioritizing electoral politics over geopolitics.
I disagree on the Russian demands, they're demanding de facto annexation of Ukraine, not mere recognition of provinces. Disarmament and an end to any alliances would immediately be followed by another invasion, something that Ukraine is incredibly aware of. Ceasefire for 4 provinces isn't on the table.
I also disagree on a threat to NATO. Trump in the White House gives Putin a very rare opportunity to destroy NATO. Trump has publicly stated that he thinks NATO expansion to the Baltics was a mistake, that he does not think that the US should be there, that those are basically Russia, and that his priority is avoiding any kind of conflict with Russia. Russia doesn't need to defeat non US NATO militarily, only challenge it. Britain will insist that an immediate response is necessary provided someone else does the fighting, Germany will call for a conference, France will call for the best seat at that conference, Medvedev will get drunk and start shouting about nukes, and Hegseth will post on facebook marketplace that the US isn't getting involved. It doesn't matter if Russia's probing force of little green men is subsequently pushed out, what matters is that NATO will be paralyzed for a while. The assurance of immediate and absolute annihilation is what makes the alliance so effective, that will be destroyed.
But there's no accounting for events.
|
On July 07 2025 04:25 Ardias wrote:Unless there is a total USSR-1991 style collapse in Russia, it doesn't pull anything from anywhere. New regions are being heavily integrated into Russian government and economic structure, they received more than 10 billion USD of federal funding in 2023 alone, which is 3 percent of a whole Russian federal budget spending for that year (and that's not including donations from other regional budgets and business investments). You do not invest this kind of money if you're opting to leave. Best bet for Ukraine, bar the aforementioned total collapse scenario, which I find unlikely, is making the continuing Russian advance too costly and forcing Russia to accept unconditional ceasefire along the existing frontline. As for NATO increased military spending - unless NATO isn't planning to invade Russia, I see it either as desire to appease Trump, or the attempt to force Russia into arms race, not allowing it to return to peacetime economy, and in doing so, forcing economic crush. Reasoning about defending from Russia makes no sense, because everyone understands that Russia is in no capacity of directly threatening NATO. On the other hand it would provide boost to Kremlin propaganda of the West and NATO being a threat to Russia. About status of new regions - of course nobody would recognize them internationally, but example of Golan Heights shows that it's not needed. As Drone said above, world basically accepted Crimea being Russian after a decade. Another couple of decades after the war is over, and the same would happen with these regions, especially if some other big conflict will erupt somewhere. As of why I consider total Russian economical and political collapse unlikely - there are too little efforts made to achieve this by the West. If NATO (and mainly US) would have impose total economic blockade of Russia in 24.02.2022, such as immediate complete cut of trade, bank operations etc., and applying the same sanctions to any country trying to do business with Russia (including China) - that would work. But due to globalization of economy, it would do tremendous damage to NATO itself, and most likely it was determined that Ukraine is not worth the cost. And now, with Russia being able to revert economy to trade with friendly/neutral countries, to develop domestic production of many previously imported goods, to work out gray import and export schemes, I don't see how West can achieve economic damage capable to force a coup/open rebellion in Russia. While shops and supermarkets are full of goods, and there is no mass mobilization, people in Russia will be content with the war, en masse at least. From the political side of things, after the death of Navalny, there is no figure that can rally pro-western liberals. Navalny's ACFI nowadays totally discredited itself, liberal Russian politicians (Khodorkovsky, Katz, Volkov, Svetov, Navalnaya, etc.) spend as much efforts bickering with each other as on shitting on Putin. On the other hand, far right sight of the spectrum mostly focused on ongoing war with Ukraine, and only organized force in form of Wagner was dismantled, it's leaders played with grenades, all Prigozhin's media empire destroyed. So no threat to Putin from either side. At the moment I think that both sides believe, that they still have capability to outlast the other, hence no progress in peace talk. I also believe that demands from both sides in June talks (Ukraine - ceasefire on the frontline, no AFU restrictions, no recognition of new regions and Crimea, Russia - AFU withdrawal from all 4 regions, Ukraine's neutral status, recognition of new regions and Crimea) are actual current war goals for both sides, which both will try to enforce, fully or partially. Most likely there would be some compromise found (for example, question of recognition would be moved to an indefinite later date, or Russia will drop demands on Kherson and Zaporozhie territory under AFU control), but this would be achieved in like 1-1,5 years from now on.
I feel like it would not boost the propaganda as they already shooting wolf with NATO, so they can't really say you see now they are a real threat. Which would only mean they were not a threat before.
The main reason for the budget increase is to rely less on US. The second reason is that the hybrid war acts have crossed a redline and NATO is already acting while they don't need to attack across boundary, they have plenty of targets outside. Turkey shot down a Russian fighter without consequences, this will happen in other airspace violation soon.
The shadow fleet is working its last days and Russia will need to find a way to escalated this since it will be too costly of a hit and the PR will be humiliating to Putin.
For most of the rest of your post, I mostly agree with what you said.
|
It's fascinating to hear an actual Russian perspective, I appreciate it!
I worked with a bunch of guys who basically left Russia in 2022, all military age, in a gaming company, and while these guys were no fans of Putin they were all of the same sentiment, Russia will win eventually, nothing is really bothering Russian people who are very used to this and the resentment and sanctions will pass eventually.
It's depressing how much more likely this scenario is becoming, and like many things going wrong in the world, one of the main reasons is Trump.
A few months back when Trump was pushing for negotiations I kind of laid out a similar scenario, the regions will be divided, Luhansk and Donetsk will be fully integrated into Russia while Kherson and Zaporizhia might be split up so Russia gets to keep their land bridge to Crimea. Crimea is, unfortunately long gone, albeit economically crippled and incredibly costly for Russia to hold, especially for their Black Sea fleet.
Again, huge reason for this is utter fecklessness of European politicians, but we all went over this many times.
When it come so the future of war and how much investment NATO should and into what, I don't believe the age of air superiority is over, look at Iran, they basically got all their AA wiped out with no help from USA just by Israel from 1000 + KM away, what we are seeing in Ukraine is old basically offset by time by 20-30 years and despite all the "elite" AA that Russia has on paper I don't think it would take NATO more then 3 days to have complete air superiority over Ukraine and another 2-3 weeks to do so over all of Russia, mostly due to the vastness of the country.
This is why I believe that a join EU 6th gen fighter program would be extremely crucial, stealth and range seem to beat AA every time from what I can see, so getting these produced in numbers and with technology to match USA and China (I honestly don't believe that Russia even has a proper 5th gen fighter or money to make a 6th gen one) should be priority number one.
Rolls-Royce, Saab, Dassault etc. should all sit down and get to work on this asap.
|
lol
Russia: Minister found dead hours after being fired by PutinRussia's former Transport Minister Roman Starovoy has been found dead hours after Russian President Valdimir Putin fired him. The former Kursk governor's death follows fraud allegations linked to his successor. Russia's former transport minister Roman Starovoyt was found dead just hours after President Vladimir Putin dismissed him, Russian news agencies reported on Monday. Starovoyt reportedly shot himself in a Moscow suburb after the announcement of his sacking. The Investigative Committee said his body was found in a car. The news emerged after it was revealed Russian President Vladimir Putin has sacked 53-year-old Starovoit, in an unexpected move. "Today, the body of former Transport Minister Roman Starovoyt was found in his private car with a gunshot wound in the Odintsovo district," the Investigative Committee said in a statement. "The main version [considered] is suicide," it added. A decree published in Moscow gave no reason for Starovoit leaving his post. The former governor of the western Russian region of Kursk had been appointed transport minister in May last year. Starovoit's deputy, Andrey Nikitin, has been appointed acting transport minister. His successor as governor of the Kursk region, Alexei Smirnov, has been detained for alleged fraud. Smirnov, who became governor in May 2024, quit in December after Ukrainian troops invaded. The case against him alleges that funds meant for building fortifications on the border with Ukraine were misused. These fortifications have been under construction since 2022, shortly after Putin ordered Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Starovoit previously stated these facilities were completed, but no investigations against Starovoit are known at this time. Russian commentators have also pointed to chaos at airports as a possible factor in his dismissal, with hundreds of flights canceled because of frequent Ukrainian drone attacks during the holiday season. https://www.dw.com/en/russia-minister-found-dead-hours-after-being-fired-by-putin/a-73186715
|
Probably suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head three times.
Also, lol at literally everyone in that story being corrupt as fuck.
|
At least one CEO fell out of a building last week as well. I feel like there has to be a site tracking these "suicides".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
