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.
I think the point about psychological problems raised here is very valid. I have talked to Russian people that moved out of Russia because they expected a lot of broken people to come back from the war. They did not want to deal with that.
Yeah, it was stated in this thread numerous times that it'll be a nightmare for Russia once the war is over. Tens if not hundreds of thousands broken, drug-addicted men being re-introduced into general population. Some will definitely find a place in organized crime but most will just be a menace to society. If someone thinks nothing of shooting their own comrades in arms in the back there's probably little from stopping them unleashing violence on random strangers in the streets.
The problem is what if Putin is winning the war? Then what?
Ukraine loses more land and capitulated to Russian demands Russia gets all the territory it demanded and possibly more Russia may install puppet government in Ukraine Ukraine will be as corrupt as before if not worse Europe will have no choice but go back to dealing with Putin's Russia, buying gas and oil Whilst militirizing to the teeth and possibly starting cold war 2.0 but this time chance of winning is way lower because China and india will be Russia's customers too
Ukraine loses more land and capitulated to Russian demands Russia gets all the territory it demanded and possibly more - Yes, good luck if progress is 1% every 3 years as others said. Putin will be long gone by then.
Russia may install puppet government in Ukraine Ukraine will be as corrupt as before if not worse - Euromaidan happened exactly becasue of puppet government. Some of us have memory before 2022.
Europe will have no choice but go back to dealing with Putin's Russia, buying gas and oil - This isn't going to happen anytime soon, not under Putin at least. Europe knows fully well that Russia uses gas for geopolitics. Even if Europe starts buying from Russia, I expect energy to be diversified from now on but not solely from Russia.
Whilst militirizing to the teeth and possibly starting cold war 2.0 but this time chance of winning is way lower because China and india will be Russia's customers too - Yeah, ok. Russia can try. Their economy hasn't expanded much lately. Even Bulgaria is on par with it in terms of GDP per capita. In modern times, China is the stronger partner and Russia is junior. It's that bad for Russia.
There's also a rumor that OPEC has now made a deal with India which is now cutting their oil purchases from Russia (this accounts for roughly 45% of Russia's oil exports). We'll see how this pans out in the long term.
On August 25 2025 06:09 spets1 wrote: The problem is what if Putin is winning the war? Then what?
Europe is likely to send troops to Ukraine to prevent that from happening.
Ukraine loses more land and capitulated to Russian demands Russia gets all the territory it demanded and possibly more Russia may install puppet government in Ukraine Ukraine will be as corrupt as before if not worse
As was already pointed out to you numerous times, this war is an existential threat to Ukraine. Capitulation is not an option. For Ukraine to do that, Russia would have to credibly threaten taking Kyiv, at the very least. At the current rate, it'll take Russia years to fully occupy Donbas. Taking Kyiv is pure fantasy.
It was also already explained to you that capitulation does not mean less death. Ukrainians will be forcefully conscripted to fight Russia's next wars. Russia's been doing that with Ukrainians from the occupied territories from the very beginning. Russian propaganda is openly talking about conquering the Baltic states. It's also making Kazakhstan a new threat, demonizing it the same way it had done with Ukraine prior to the invasion.
Europe will have no choice but go back to dealing with Putin's Russia, buying gas and oil
No choice? What are you even talking about? It's a done deal. Europe diversified its energy imports. Going back to being dependent on Russia would be stupid. Treason, even.
Whilst militirizing to the teeth and possibly starting cold war 2.0 but this time chance of winning is way lower
Starting? We're already in it.
because China and india will be Russia's customers too
Europe is making it more and more difficult for Russia to export to India and China by targeting the shadow fleet. Ukraine (presumably) is helping us by destroying some of the vessels.
Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions. Please, do that when you get the time.
On August 25 2025 06:09 spets1 wrote: The problem is what if Putin is winning the war? Then what?
Ukraine loses more land and capitulated to Russian demands Russia gets all the territory it demanded and possibly more Russia may install puppet government in Ukraine Ukraine will be as corrupt as before if not worse Europe will have no choice but go back to dealing with Putin's Russia, buying gas and oil Whilst militirizing to the teeth and possibly starting cold war 2.0 but this time chance of winning is way lower because China and india will be Russia's customers too
Sounds like horrible outcomes, no wonder Ukraine is so willing to fight such a larger adversary. The rest of us should really support them as much as we can!
Treason? Possibly. Stupid? Definitively. But that's exactly why I'll give our leaders a maximum of 3 years after the end of the war before they're buying Russian oil again, and within 10 years we'll be back to status quo where we're dependant on Russian oil to survive.
It's not like Russia behaving like this started in 2022. We all knew who they were, heck Crimea only happened 8 years earlier. And yet EU leaders were tripping over themselves to see who could suck Russia's cock the hardest. I'm continuously thoroughly disgusted by how fucking naive our leaders are and continue to be
On August 25 2025 06:38 Excludos wrote: Treason? Possibly. Stupid? Definitively. But that's exactly why I'll give our leaders a maximum of 3 years after the end of the war before they're buying Russian oil again, and within 10 years we'll be back to status quo where we're dependant on Russian oil to survive.
It's not like Russia behaving like this started in 2022. We all knew who they were, heck Crimea only happened 8 years earlier. And yet EU leaders were tripping over themselves to see who could suck Russia's cock the hardest. I'm continuously thoroughly disgusted by how fucking naive our leaders are and continue to be
They are not naive, they are extremely short sighted. Which is sadly how the world is currently operating and has for a while now. It is biting us, and only going to bite us harder if we continue.
The share of renewables in our energy mixes is increasing at a steady pace. New nuclear power plants are also being built in some European countries. Electric cars are becoming more and more popular. By the time the war is over and proposing opening our market to Russia is not considered toxic, I don't think there'll be much of an incentive to buy fossil fuels from Russia. The only scenario I can imagine where that happens is if Russian puppets like AfD or Konfederacja win elections.
On August 25 2025 06:48 maybenexttime wrote: The share of renewables in our energy mixes is increasing at a steady pace. New nuclear power plants are also being built in some European countries. Electric cars are becoming more and more popular. By the time the war is over and proposing opening our market to Russia is not considered toxic, I don't think there'll be much of an incentive to buy fossil fuels from Russia. The only scenario I can imagine where that happens is if Russian puppets like AfD or Konfederacja win elections.
It also depends on the state of Russian oil infrastructure after the war. I suspect it might be a while before they're even capable of making significant oil deliveries to Europe.
Even if Russia won tomorrow there will be some serious backdraft from the war effort and their economy will most likely be in shambles for quite some time. They'd have to rebuild a big part of their energy sector too while dealing with all the problems caused by people returning from war and trying to get their economy back to normal after throwing it completely out of whack with wartime footing.
On August 25 2025 06:09 spets1 wrote: The problem is what if Putin is winning the war? Then what?
Then he wins. Doesn’t mean Ukraine should give in without a fight. Russian demands in victory can’t go higher than their current demands of everything.
The rest of your nonsense is nonsense. Things will never be better for Russia than 2022. Traditionally neutral nations have joined NATO, rival infrastructure for other hydrocarbon suppliers has been built out of necessity, rearmament is fully underway.
On August 25 2025 06:38 Excludos wrote: Treason? Possibly. Stupid? Definitively. But that's exactly why I'll give our leaders a maximum of 3 years after the end of the war before they're buying Russian oil again, and within 10 years we'll be back to status quo where we're dependant on Russian oil to survive.
It's not like Russia behaving like this started in 2022. We all knew who they were, heck Crimea only happened 8 years earlier. And yet EU leaders were tripping over themselves to see who could suck Russia's cock the hardest. I'm continuously thoroughly disgusted by how fucking naive our leaders are and continue to be
Eh, no.
The initial pivot from Russian oil and gas is the most expensive because the infrastructure and supply economic ecosystem isn’t in place. You’ll put up with damn near anything to make the relationship with Russia work because they’re such a big supplier that you can’t replace them on short notice.
North Africa has plenty of natural gas but the pipelines would need to be expanded and extended, the wells enlarged, new wells drilled, pumping stations built, depots built, huge amounts of capital spent. You’d need to import trained workers because the local economy wouldn’t have the required human capital in the quantities required. It’d be a colossal investment and so you’d put up with a lot to do avoid having to do it.
But let’s say they made you. Let’s say Russia deliberately tried to freeze you in midwinter. You grit your teeth and you spend the fortune because what else are you going to do, freeze?
At that point it doesn’t make sense to go back beyond keeping some lines open for diversification and supply chain resiliency. You’ve already built the LNG terminals, it’s a sunk cost. You’ve already signed long term fixed quantity contracts with suppliers because they weren’t willing to spend a fortune expanding their capacity if you might change your mind a year in. You’ve already got all this infrastructure that has a long payback period.
Russia’s hydrocarbon blackmail is a card they can play exactly once. It’s hugely powerful as a threat, they can leverage it to get Crimea as a fait accompli for example. But only once.
It’s like if I held your wife at gunpoint and demanded you did what I said. I could get a lot from doing that. But eventually I ask too much, you refuse, and I shoot her. At that point I can threaten to shoot her again but it doesn’t really have the same impact.
Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions. Please, do that when you get the time.
I already know the answers in your head to these questions, and you wont change your mind so I dont see the reason to go back and forth arguing when there is no chance of meeting of the minds.
What I will say is that in a war there is always at least 3 sides to the story.
1. Opponent A story 2. Opponent B story 3. Reality
What is important for opponent A to understand is that Opponent B wholeheartedly believes their story and in case of a war they will fight for their version of the truth. So it doesnt matter if they are wrong or not, what matters is that you can't change their opinion. And in knowing this, what is the best way forward to achieve the best outcome for yourself.
Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions. Please, do that when you get the time.
I already know the answers in your head to these questions, and you wont change your mind so I dont see the reason to go back and forth arguing when there is no chance of meeting of the minds.
What I will say is that in a war there is always at least 3 sides to the story.
1. Opponent A story 2. Opponent B story 3. Reality
What is important for opponent A to understand is that Opponent B wholeheartedly believes their story and in case of a war they will fight for their version of the truth. So it doesnt matter if they are wrong or not, what matters is that you can't change their opinion. And in knowing this, what is the best way forward to achieve the best outcome for yourself.
You're telling me that Russia really believes all of this nonsense? Or rather Russia wants you to believe those things because they are experts at fabricating events to use them to their advantage later as well as experts at brainwashing their own people and propaganda in general?
The reality here is very simple. It's a terrible war and it's completely unnecessary, Russia invaded Ukraine for the sole purpose of fulfilling Putin's wet dream of restoring USSR to its former glory. That's about it.
On August 25 2025 09:19 spets1 wrote: What I will say is that in a war there is always at least 3 sides to the story.
1. Opponent A story 2. Opponent B story 3. Reality
What is important for opponent A to understand is that Opponent B wholeheartedly believes their story and in case of a war they will fight for their version of the truth.
In a world run by narcissists and psychopaths these 'earnest beliefs' absolutely don't matter. They are only excuses to pursue self-interest and are regularly adjusted to fit the situation.
That's why you resort to war or violence in general. You can't change your opponents beliefs with it, but you do change their cost-benefit calculation.
Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions. Please, do that when you get the time.
I already know the answers in your head to these questions, and you wont change your mind so I dont see the reason to go back and forth arguing when there is no chance of meeting of the minds.
What I will say is that in a war there is always at least 3 sides to the story.
1. Opponent A story 2. Opponent B story 3. Reality
What is important for opponent A to understand is that Opponent B wholeheartedly believes their story and in case of a war they will fight for their version of the truth. So it doesnt matter if they are wrong or not, what matters is that you can't change their opinion. And in knowing this, what is the best way forward to achieve the best outcome for yourself.
This isn't about stories. This is about factual statements that you've made. Do you have any evidence supporting them? I am open to changing my mind if presented with actual evidence, are you? (Case in point: I was of the opinion that Russia was likely behind the NS attack, but since more and more evidence is pointing towards Ukraine, I'm willing to accept that.) If you're here to just push Russian propaganda then you won't find a receptive audience for that.
So let me ask my questions again.
What makes you think the West is unaware of those demands?
Do you have an equally "nuanced" view on the Holocaust?
The Russian language was not banned. Do you have any evidence? Also ethnically Russian population was not being was not being systematically killed. Do you have any evidence of that?
What made Ukraine anti-Russian was Russia's brutal invasion and attempted genocide. Do you acknowledge that?
Also, to clear up another lie that you're pushing, here's an article by a former US ambassador to Russia outlining Russia's/Putin's position on NATO expansion over the years. For a long time, he wasn't opposed to that, including even Ukraine. It's only after Georgia and Ukraine toppled Kremlin puppets that Putin's views changed, but that was only a false talking point. His real fear was those countries becoming democratic. If Putin feared NATO expansion so much, why did he help the US establish military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in 2000s?
Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions. Please, do that when you get the time.
I already know the answers in your head to these questions, and you wont change your mind so I dont see the reason to go back and forth arguing when there is no chance of meeting of the minds.
What I will say is that in a war there is always at least 3 sides to the story.
1. Opponent A story 2. Opponent B story 3. Reality
What is important for opponent A to understand is that Opponent B wholeheartedly believes their story and in case of a war they will fight for their version of the truth. So it doesnt matter if they are wrong or not, what matters is that you can't change their opinion. And in knowing this, what is the best way forward to achieve the best outcome for yourself.
This isn't about stories. This is about factual statements that you've made. Do you have any evidence supporting them? I am open to changing my mind if presented with actual evidence, are you? (Case in point: I was of the opinion that Russia was likely behind the NS attack, but since more and more evidence is pointing towards Ukraine, I'm willing to accept that.) If you're here to just push Russian propaganda then you won't find a receptive audience for that.
So let me ask my questions again.
What makes you think the West is unaware of those demands?
Do you have an equally "nuanced" view on the Holocaust?
The Russian language was not banned. Do you have any evidence? Also ethnically Russian population was not being was not being systematically killed. Do you have any evidence of that?
What made Ukraine anti-Russian was Russia's brutal invasion and attempted genocide. Do you acknowledge that?
Also, to clear up another lie that you're pushing, here's an article by a former US ambassador to Russia outlining Russia's/Putin's position on NATO expansion over the years. For a long time, he wasn't opposed to that, including even Ukraine. It's only after Georgia and Ukraine toppled Kremlin puppets that Putin's views changed. If Putin feared NATO expansion so much, why did he help the US establish military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in 2000s?
Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions. Please, do that when you get the time.
I already know the answers in your head to these questions, and you wont change your mind so I dont see the reason to go back and forth arguing when there is no chance of meeting of the minds.
What I will say is that in a war there is always at least 3 sides to the story.
1. Opponent A story 2. Opponent B story 3. Reality
What is important for opponent A to understand is that Opponent B wholeheartedly believes their story and in case of a war they will fight for their version of the truth. So it doesnt matter if they are wrong or not, what matters is that you can't change their opinion. And in knowing this, what is the best way forward to achieve the best outcome for yourself.
This is almost never the case. Obviously there are myths that are built up but at the highest levels of power just about everyone is entirely aware that those are made up stories, and would in private find it insulting to their intelligence that you believe they don't. Putin, for example, could not care less about what happens to Russia and Russians, everything he does is entirely about maintaining his power and his legacy. But he of course understands that people would be less inclined to donate their lives in the hundreds of thousands if they knew this was about him and not about protecting Russia, and so we hear about protecting Russia.
What you want to do is move past the BS from opponent A and opponent B and get to the truth, not conclude that the truth doesn't matter because A and B have different rhetoric. Having different rhetoric is mundane, even between individuals we do it all the time about everything.
Facts don't determine the winner or losers, or even the motivation to war harder.
Exactly my point. If you actually re-read my posts you'll see that what I'm saying is that those claims are made by Putin's Russia. And many millions of people believe that as much as you believe your story. And there is no way to change the minds of believers. Or at least very very hard as it becomes their identity and their ego cannot accept anything else
Back when NS blew up I'm sure there would be been people 100% sure that Russians did it. And would've argued to no end that anyone saying it's not Russians is a Russian propaganda. They were wrong. Just like now you should be able to realise that some of your beliefs could be wrong.
EPT
