|
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 States43902 Posts
On August 20 2025 15:16 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2025 15:02 KwarK wrote:
You need to go back and read what was actually discussed in those negotiations and what the non negotiable demands of Russia were. Until you make the effort to educate yourself you're just wasting your time here. tell me the terms have gotten better because of the years long almost 0 attempt in diplomacy. Your proposal : kill every Russians invading, is that also fight till Ukraine's last man then? Good luck, that's called sleepwalking into a disaster.
I'm not making any proposals because Russia isn't offering any deals. Russia will do what Russia will do and Ukraine will fight because it must. It's just what it is.
We all want an equitable end to the war but there isn't one on the table and there never was. Russia is waging a war of extermination upon them and no amount of wishing otherwise will change that.
|
Why doesn't Russia simply take the deal?
They have been invading for three years now, losing hundreds of thousands of men in the process. And what do they have to show for it? Some square kilometers of useless bombed and mined land. At the current rate, Russian men will run out long before Ukrainian mud runs out.
Why do they not take the peace proposal that Ukraine has been offering for ages now? Why do they make zero attempts at diplomacy and instead always cling to their insane demands?
What is your proposal for them, just send men into Ukraine until all of their men are dead?
|
On August 20 2025 17:42 Simberto wrote:
Why doesn't Russia simply take the deal?
They have been invading for three years now, losing hundreds of thousands of men in the process. And what do they have to show for it? Some square kilometers of useless bombed and mined land. At the current rate, Russian men will run out long before Ukrainian mud runs out.
Why do they not take the peace proposal that Ukraine has been offering for ages now? Why do they make zero attempts at diplomacy and instead always cling to their insane demands?
What is your proposal for them, just send men into Ukraine until all of their men are dead?
Russia won't take a peace proposal because Russia doesn't care about peace or their men. They have a fetish for the rose tinted time of the USSR empire, and nothing is more important than this wet dream of some old shrivelled up, narcissistic, psychopathic men. Realizing that logic and empathy never enters the equation is the first step to understanding how Putin and Russia functions
|
On August 20 2025 19:00 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2025 17:42 Simberto wrote:
Why doesn't Russia simply take the deal?
They have been invading for three years now, losing hundreds of thousands of men in the process. And what do they have to show for it? Some square kilometers of useless bombed and mined land. At the current rate, Russian men will run out long before Ukrainian mud runs out.
Why do they not take the peace proposal that Ukraine has been offering for ages now? Why do they make zero attempts at diplomacy and instead always cling to their insane demands?
What is your proposal for them, just send men into Ukraine until all of their men are dead? Russia won't take a peace proposal because Russia doesn't care about peace or their men. They have a fetish for the rose tinted time of the USSR empire, and nothing is more important than this wet dream of some old shrivelled up, narcissistic, psychopathic men. Realizing that logic and empathy never enters the equation is the first step to understanding how Putin and Russia functions
I mostly wanted to shift away from always putting all demands on Ukraine, and turn the discussion around towards Russia.
"Peace" discussions always treat Russia as this immovable and completely unchangeable force that Ukraine just has to adapt to, and then suddenly everyone talks about what Ukraine has to do to somehow get peace.
|
On August 20 2025 19:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2025 19:00 Excludos wrote:On August 20 2025 17:42 Simberto wrote:
Why doesn't Russia simply take the deal?
They have been invading for three years now, losing hundreds of thousands of men in the process. And what do they have to show for it? Some square kilometers of useless bombed and mined land. At the current rate, Russian men will run out long before Ukrainian mud runs out.
Why do they not take the peace proposal that Ukraine has been offering for ages now? Why do they make zero attempts at diplomacy and instead always cling to their insane demands?
What is your proposal for them, just send men into Ukraine until all of their men are dead? Russia won't take a peace proposal because Russia doesn't care about peace or their men. They have a fetish for the rose tinted time of the USSR empire, and nothing is more important than this wet dream of some old shrivelled up, narcissistic, psychopathic men. Realizing that logic and empathy never enters the equation is the first step to understanding how Putin and Russia functions I mostly wanted to shift away from always putting all demands on Ukraine, and turn the discussion around towards Russia. "Peace" discussions always treat Russia as this immovable and completely unchangeable force that Ukraine just has to adapt to, and then suddenly everyone talks about what Ukraine has to do to somehow get peace. No, only a certain group of people does that and they do that on purpose.
|
History teaches us that you can't really make a peace deal with Russia. Chechnya learned it the hard way, signed peace with Russia only to have Grozny leveled 3 years later. Not to mention Russians mining the "safe passage" they created for people fleeing the city etc.
The only deal Russians didn't break was when they joined forces with the Nazi Germany to occupy Poland (and they didn't break it because the Nazis betrayed them first).
|
On August 20 2025 07:51 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2025 00:54 RvB wrote:On August 19 2025 17:25 ETisME wrote:On August 19 2025 16:51 Manit0u wrote:On August 19 2025 16:26 ETisME wrote:On August 19 2025 08:11 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
Gonna be honest. Wasnt expecting Trump to be the one getting this conflict ( Paused/Resolved )
I mean hell. Not long ago he fcking striked Iran nuclear plants or w.e.and i was like shit. Looks like another one about to start. Hopefully this time a deal can be done and Ukraine will back to a life were being under siege isnt the norm after 3.5 years. So many young lives going to dust is actually so sad. Whole generations fucked. Truly a tragedy. "I think in the past two weeks, we've probably had more progress in ending this war than we have in the past three-and-a-half years." Great slogan but also very true. Which nation really pushed hard for talks? Some gave proposals and then ended it there, like China. EU and Biden were more about giving arms and sleep walked into an endless pit and not knowing how to stop. It's unfortunate how long it took to get them accept reality that Ukraine isn't going to recapture all the lost land, Russia isn't collapsing as predicted, or crying "justice" "existential crisis" ain't enough It's actually only Trump and Russia that want this "peace" on Russian terms. Ukraine is not interested in peace on those terms and EU is fully behind it - that's why you don't see EU make much comments on it, they just decided to fall in behind Zelensky and make him the representative. This is a clear signal that whatever Ukraine wants the EU is backing them up, no questions asked. You are saying "want" as if they have a good choice. They are stuck with bad options only because frankly they would never be able to recapture all the lost lands (unless Russia collapses like they hoped) I want to get rid of CCP and I have to settle for far less. This peace deal is clearly the worst of the bad options Ukraine has. It's giving away a heavily fortified region and logistical hub that would take Russia years to take at a very heavy cost in men and material. Furthermore it would leave the rest of Ukraine wide open for further invasion. The deal is Putin trying to get at the negotiating table what he cannot take militarily. Everyone involved knows this except Trump apparently. Any acceptable deal will likely mostly freeze the current frontlines. Is it still bad in an exchange for a security guarantee?
Yes it is still bad. The only way to achieve a durable peace with an imperialist like Putin is to make the cost of restarting war so high that he does not feel like there's a realistic way to get something out if it. The primary way to do that is to make your army strong enough to resist. Security guarantees are very important but no replacement. France won't put boots on the ground if Ukraine can't mount a proper defense. Even if they will under Macron they probably won't under Le Pen. Giving their most fortified piece of land and main logistical hub away makes Ukraine militarily much weaker while making Russia stronger. It's an incentive to restart the war in the future and a disincentive to fulfill the security guarantees.
You're probably right that Ukraine is not going to be able to recapture their land. Neither is Russia making significant gains though. As I said the land they're demanding now will take them years to capture if they even manage to do so. Why would Ukraine ever give that away for nothing in return?
|
United States43902 Posts
|
Unless China bails them out, it's only a matter of time before Russia starts collapsing. Its economy is falling apart and the Soviet equipment stock is almost gone. If Ukraine can scale up its production of long-range cruise missiles, Russia's oil & gas industry will be in deep trouble.
|
On August 20 2025 21:45 maybenexttime wrote:
Unless China bails them out, it's only a matter of time before Russia starts collapsing. Its economy is falling apart and the Soviet equipment stock is almost gone. If Ukraine can scale up its production of long-range cruise missiles, Russia's oil & gas industry will be in deep trouble.
Any meaningful evidence? I've been hearing this logic for close to two years so it is becoming unbelievable.
|
I think it's probably the case when it looks fine, looks fine, looks fine... bam!.. and then fast and dramatic collapse.
But - I think it also might be the case with Ukraine. I.e. there's a chance their defense/situation might collapse fast too if a few events in a row don't go their way.
|
On August 20 2025 22:22 Gescom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2025 21:45 maybenexttime wrote:
Unless China bails them out, it's only a matter of time before Russia starts collapsing. Its economy is falling apart and the Soviet equipment stock is almost gone. If Ukraine can scale up its production of long-range cruise missiles, Russia's oil & gas industry will be in deep trouble. Any meaningful evidence? I've been hearing this logic for close to two years so it is becoming unbelievable.
Thing is, it is very obvious that what Russia is currently doing is not sustainable forever.
Just because you have been hearing it for two years doesn't mean that it should have already happened if it is to happen. I still don't believe anyone who claims any firm timelines, especially if those are very short-term. That is basically always sensationalistic bullshit.
Countries on war footing can take increasingly worse deals to mortgage their future for the now. They can do this for a pretty long time, as long as the population goes along with it. And in a sufficiently autocratic system, the population can go along with it (or not be able to do anything about it) for a very long time.
But basically all data very clearly shows that Russia is using everything at a faster rate than they produce it. They are using more manpower and more equipment than they produce, and that means that eventually stocks will run low, which leads to hard questions.
|
The problem with "at the current rate they will run out in X" is that when they don't run out in X it sounds like people were wrong, when more likely what happens is that the rate of expenditure went down.
The reason Russia is mostly entrenched and occasionally pushing is because they can no longer keep up the old pace of attacks. This way they stretch existing resources further ect.
|
Agree with everything said so far but Russia is not a rational actor and will mortgage their future more than most would consider AND they seem to keep finding convenient bedfellows in Iran, NK, China, etc. =/
I hope they run out tomorrow, as I did in 2023.
|
United States43902 Posts
On August 20 2025 22:22 Gescom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2025 21:45 maybenexttime wrote:
Unless China bails them out, it's only a matter of time before Russia starts collapsing. Its economy is falling apart and the Soviet equipment stock is almost gone. If Ukraine can scale up its production of long-range cruise missiles, Russia's oil & gas industry will be in deep trouble. Any meaningful evidence? I've been hearing this logic for close to two years so it is becoming unbelievable.
You've been hearing it but you've also been watching it happen and seeing it confirmed so I don't know which parts you're not believing.
On July 28 2025 23:44 KwarK wrote:
The predictions were never that a given supply would hit 0 and the war would instantly stop. They’re saying that given the rate of consumption, the rate of production, and the existing reserves the current situation must change within X months. For example usage of 10/month, production of 0/month, reserves of 100. That’ll last for 10 months at most before something changes.
The something could be a substitution, missiles could run low and their role could be taken by something like long range drones. So the attacks would continue but not in the same way.
It could be rationing, maybe they use 10% of their stocks each month so they never run dry but their usage steadily declines.
It could be an area where they increase production. Maybe they’re using the reserves to buy time while they get production online.
Or maybe they’ll get external resupply. Russia did consume all of its artillery shell stockpile, just as forecasted, but then NK opened up their arsenals.
In any case you need to learn to read what the predictions are predicting. It’s not a countdown to peace, it’s a mathematical formula that states that one of the variables must change within a given time frame.
The signs of exhaustion are all there. Russia are performing assaults in golf buggies and on motorbikes. Towed artillery tractors with flak armour are being used for armoured assaults. Drones have replaced missiles. Signup bonuses continue to go up. The Russian central bank has been forced to stop fighting inflation because the damage caused by high interest rates was breaking things elsewhere. Russian state owned businesses are unable to pay their dividends to the public purse because they have no money and so the sovereign wealth fund is forced to "loan" the business cash so the business can give cash to the treasury. The sovereign wealth fund is down 90% from its high.
The projections are basically all true. They have run out of artillery shell stockpiles. They have run out of modern tanks and premodern tanks. They're down to refurbishing the very earliest versions of the T80s which have no ERA or turret stabilization (they can't fire and move). There are no more Bakhmut style prisoner meatwaves because all the prisoners are dead.
You've just not been paying attention.
|
What ETisME and other Russia sympathizers fail to understand is how the invasion has been going:
In 2022 Russia had taken 18% of Ukraine. 3 years later they have taken 19%
In March 2022 (height of occupation) they had 25%. 3 years later they are still at 19%.
This amazing progress Russia has achieved has been paid by (conservative estimates) hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, half of their Black Sea fleet sunk, thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of armored vehicles, billions and billions in lost air frames and anti air systems and billions of damage to their oil and gas infrastructure.
But yeah, all the pressure is on Ukraine and they should panic and give in to Trump and Putin's plans for them to give over territory for basically nothing.
|
>You've just not been paying attention.
That's correct! It was a legit question from me though. Why so hostile?
Moreover, if Russia is driving golf carts around, why is the war still ongoing?
|
United States43902 Posts
On August 21 2025 00:04 Gescom wrote:
>You've just not been paying attention.
That's correct! It was a legit question from me though. Why so hostile?
Moreover, if Russia is driving golf carts around, why is the war still ongoing?
Because they have a lot of golf carts and a man in a golf cart is still dangerous.
|
On August 21 2025 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2025 00:04 Gescom wrote:
>You've just not been paying attention.
That's correct! It was a legit question from me though. Why so hostile?
Moreover, if Russia is driving golf carts around, why is the war still ongoing? Because they have a lot of golf carts and a man in a golf cart is still dangerous.
To expound on that a bit: You only need vehicles if you want to move. If you are fine killing each other over a frozen frontline, you don't need tanks or IFVs. You can just dig a hole, and it does the same thing pretty well.
As you might have noticed, there are no longer a lot of big offensives going on. Instead, we got WW1 style exhaustion warfare for a while now. No big movements of the front, but lots of people dying. For this, you seem to mostly need artillery shells and drones.
Russia can no longer accomplish what it wants to accomplish, but it also doesn't want to give up. So now both sides grind each other down and see who runs out of people, material or will to fight first. But that can go on for a long time. WW1 lasted for 4 years, and that was with WW1 industries and populations.
|
I think the better explanation is that they still have soldiers and Putin won't let it end unless he gets what he wants or is forced to end it.
Edit:
To elaborate more on this: the dictatorial regime can't allow itself to be viewed as weak or unable to accomplish goals when it's built around "our country stronk, our leader stronk" narrative. A single failure like that would quite often mean the end of such regime. So far Russia doesn't have much to show for it after 3 years of exhausting war (captured additional 0.97% of Ukraine). In the mean time they managed to ruin domestic economy, effectively lose an entire generation or two of people for the future (and in a country whose population has been shrinking for the past 30 years). Even if Russia would actually get what it wants it'll probably still be a loss for them long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
