Define "winning". Right now it appears the Russian offensive is completely stalled due to their utter failure at logistics, they're losing armor and air support at an alarming rate, and morale among their troops seems incredibly low with how many functional fighting vehicles are being abandoned. The most damage Russia has been able to inflict has been from indiscriminate long range artillery strikes, but that alone can't win a war. As it currently stands, it seems like Russia will only be able to maintain a stalemate while continuing to bleed personnel and resources, unless they get a massive influx of new troops and equipment that some are predicting. But wouldn't we have seen some evidence of that by now?
I think Ukraine continues to hold strong and resist any pressure to provide concessions to Russia, as the longer this drags out the higher the likelihood of Russian supply lines collapsing completely
Unfortunately they are making progress on the south and east fronts and threaten to cutoff a large contingent of the Ukrainian army, which would then open up much of the country to them. It’s a race against time…sanctions + weapons + resistance + incompetence vs. overwhelming forces
I dislike the push of people to dictate what the Ukrainians should take or not take. Its their country and their choice.
If Russia came barrelling into Canada and claimed Alberta or Quebec as their territory - how quick would you be to accept just giving it up? I have no idea but it's not a simple call.
It is their decision. But great powers backing weaker powers in a conflict have always had an influence on negotiations and peace terms. If Ukraine wants continued backing from the West, it can’t ignore the interests of the U.S., UK, France, etc.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-08-2022 at 11:44 AM.
I'm talking about the discussions here and giving my opinion on people saying Ukraine should accept this or not accept that. They are the ones getting bombed and the ones who'd be giving up territory so whatever they want to accept is fine by me.
I don't think anyone is going to be freaking out here if they accept something, of course it is their choice. Can we not discuss if we think it is an acceptable deal? Like, obviously we'd all like Ukraine to take no prisoners and push Russia out, but the reality is, something else is going to be on the table. Just seems a weird thing to police...
Now that doesn't necessarily explain the current confrontation. I think it's pretty clear that this war wasn't started solely from a somewhat legitimate (though likely paranoid) fear of NATO or territorial insecurity. It probably has as much or more to do with wanting to project Russian power and for lack of a better term "Make Russia Great Again", though so far at least it's doing the opposite.
It is absolutely doing the opposite, to the point that it cast doubts over the initial intention. If this was designed to show Russia's power, it was a phenomenally dumb decision. Even if Russia could somehow pull off a blitzkrieg, it would still hurt Russian economy and reputation terribly. It would frighten all our neighbors and make them run to the open arms of NATO. The gain of land would never pay off enough to offset loses due to sanctions. If it was designed to make Russia great again, it was a catastrophic miscalculation.
I don't think anyone is going to be freaking out here if they accept something, of course it is their choice. Can we not discuss if we think it is an acceptable deal? Like, obviously we'd all like Ukraine to take no prisoners and push Russia out, but the reality is, something else is going to be on the table. Just seems a weird thing to police...
We can discuss all we want, just have to keep in mind who's really being impacted here when discussing it. It's a much easier decision to make when you have no skin in the game.
It is absolutely doing the opposite, to the point that it cast doubts over the initial intention. If this was designed to show Russia's power, it was a phenomenally dumb decision. Even if Russia could somehow pull off a blitzkrieg, it would still hurt Russian economy and reputation terribly. It would frighten all our neighbors and make them run to the open arms of NATO. The gain of land would never pay off enough to offset loses due to sanctions. If it was designed to make Russia great again, it was a catastrophic miscalculation.
Yes, it was and is weirdly 19th century thinking, that the world doesn't respect Russia because it isnt big enough!! someone needs to sit down with Putin and point out that Russia is the biggest country in the world, that adding another few more millions acres of trees isnt going to change anything, the reason it gets laughed at is because it is broke
__________________ "There will be a short outage tonight sometime between 11:00PM and 1:00AM as network upgrades are performed. Please do not panic and overthrow society. Thank you."
The Following User Says Thank You to Redliner For This Useful Post:
I guess the pass through to the US gives Poland a bit of distance from just giving them to the Ukraine, but somehow I'm not sure Russia is going to see it that way.
Sobering analysis by the former US national intelligence officer for Europe.
Yeah, this is where I see it going as well. Brief and limited tactical nuclear exchange, then everyone pushes away from the table into some uneasy peace.
EMP attacks behave similarly to electric grid cyberattacks:
What would your three best tips be for a guy that was heading over to Ukraine to fight, but he had never fought before? Not allowed to say "don't go, don't go, don't go." I'm talking actual tips that could make a difference.
At least in Finland there's dedicated forums for the topic.
I'd start by joining some Facebook groups for veterans and ask around. There's a good chance someone can point you forward. Google might also help. If nothing else, veterans groups will likely give solid advice.
They should also contact a Ukrainian embassy, they'll have more info.
A thing to remember though; Russia is fishing around the same sites and contacting volunteers to get information, so not everything should be shared with strangers.
Here would be my my peace proposal if I were mediating between Ukraine and Russia:
1. Russia gains no territory as spoils of war.
2. Ukraine adopts official neutrality and NATO membership is taken off the table. Possible EU membership is not taken off the table.
3. Ukraine recognizes the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics as independent. Both republics need to adopt neutrality and not be annexed by Russia. Both need to be de-militarized. Ukrainians in both republics may keep their Ukrainian citizenship and are free to move between Ukraine and those areas.
4. A de-militarized zone along the Ukrainian-Belarussian and Ukraine-Russian borders is created. NATO and Russia scale down the militarization in the Baltic region.
5. Ukraine drops all claims to Crimea and agrees allow it access to freshwater. Russia is granted a secure land bridge corridor to Crimea in Ukraine. To remain part of Ukraine, but managed as a free-zone so that Crimea can be properly developed.
6. Ukraine gets XX% of the natural resource revenue from the economic zone around Crimea in exchange for freshwater and dropping their claims to the area.
7. Russia pays reparations in exchange for dropping sanctions.
Would that be fair for both sides?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Here would be my my peace proposal if I were mediating between Ukraine and Russia:
1. Russia gains no territory as spoils of war.
2. Ukraine adopts official neutrality and NATO membership is taken off the table. Possible EU membership is not taken off the table.
3. Ukraine recognizes the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics as independent. Both republics need to adopt neutrality and not be annexed by Russia. Both need to be de-militarized. Ukrainians in both republics may keep their Ukrainian citizenship and are free to move between Ukraine and those areas.
4. A de-militarized zone along the Ukrainian-Belarussian and Ukraine-Russian borders is created. NATO and Russia scale down the militarization in the Baltic region.
5. Ukraine drops all claims to Crimea and agrees allow it access to freshwater. Russia is granted a secure land bridge corridor to Crimea in Ukraine. To remain part of Ukraine, but managed as a free-zone so that Crimea can be properly developed.
6. Ukraine gets XX% of the natural resource revenue from the economic zone around Crimea in exchange for freshwater and dropping their claims to the area.
7. Russia pays reparations in exchange for dropping sanctions.
Would that be fair for both sides?
This would be a huge win for Russia. Aside from reparations, whatever they might be, Russia gets everything they want and Ukraine loses big time. Ukraine loses territory and security. What is to stop Russia from invading again? The only thing that would give Ukraine security would be to join NATO and I don't see that happening.
I assume it will have to be American pilots and crew coming along with whatever Poland is provided in return for lending their Migs to Ukraine. Which means US servicemen based in Poland in significant numbers. Gotta wonder how Russia will view that.
