Where would Ukraine stand on this declaration, though? Can't imagine they would just rollover and let those areas be annexed.
Nor would the sanctions just go away.
my guess is Ukraine would find a way to swallow this. basically it means Russia loses utterly, they gain no ground, the seperatist regions were already in Russian hands, the two difficult issues wont be them it will be fresh water to Crimea and the land bridge along the coast, these were the real need to establish for Russia, the Crimea has no water, it was slowly dying without access to freshwater, Russia is going to try and keep the coast, thats going to be the issue the Ukraine cant back down on
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
"The main objectives of the first stage of the operation have generally been accomplished,"
"The combat potential of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union has been considerably reduced in Stalingrad, which ... makes it possible to focus our core efforts on achieving the main goal, the liberation of Kursk and Belgorod."
Different timeline, same results...same propaganda.
I want to add that while I think Pointmans fear is irrational, most fears are pretty irrational. Emotions kind of by definition aren't super rational, and knowing how much Russian state media has played up the idea of needing to be constantly afraid of western aggression for generations, it's extremely human to feel that fear.
It's easy to say that "you shouldn't be afraid of someone bombing you", when you're not the one in danger if that happens.
(One massive tragedy here is that in reality, the western economies have really gone out of their way to not be the enemy of Russia. Western nations are driven by capitalist desires (or the desires of capitalists), and integrating Russia into the global capitalist system peacefully has for that reason been a major goal of western powers ever since the Soviet collapse. A major reason why everyone has been willing to look the other way when Putin has done the horrid crap he's done over the years was because the west just wanted SO BADLY to bring Russia into their fold, to have them as a partner at the table instead of an enemy.
All those international companies didn't come to Russia just so they could wait for an excuse to pull out dramatically.
Sadly it's a dictatorship and that was never beneficial to Putin. His only strength is in power games, so he keeps wanting to play adversarial power games. He is after all kind of a terrible economical and political leader, proven by the perpetually sorry state of the Russian economy compared to it's national resources, and would likely quickly get replaced in peaceful political conditions where things like trade relations and economic development were at the top of the people's mind instead of national safety.)
I'm going to disagree here, my guess is Russia is about to go through another decade or two of hell, if I was Pointman I'd be terrified right now.
there is no good end to this for ordinary Russian's they have two possible futures, Putin stays in power but only by reverting to Stalinist levels repression while the country remains an international pariah becoming poorer than Khazakstan or Chechnya or their is a coup/civil war that takes down Putin, and the truth is while we might veiw this as our best outcome it almost certainly also brings year of upheaval, poverty and death within Russia, once again pray thanks to whichever God you believe in that we live in Canada
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Where would Ukraine stand on this declaration, though? Can't imagine they would just rollover and let those areas be annexed.
Nor would the sanctions just go away.
I don't think there is much Ukraine will be able to do about those regions. They lost control of them a long time ago and the pro-Russian side is strong enough that it would continue to be an ongoing civil war.
I hate to say it, but they have to let those parts go in order to have peace for the most people. Other countries have had to deal with the exact thing, often followed by population exchanges. It's difficult, if not impossible, to share your country with an ethnic group where the majority of people only want to see the demise of the country or annexation by another country. If their life's mission is to destroy the country from within and they have a "homeland" nation next door, it's probably time to send them "home", even if you have to let them take a chunk of land with them.
__________________
"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:
I don't think there is much Ukraine will be able to do about those regions. They lost control of them a long time ago and the pro-Russian side is strong enough that it would continue to be an ongoing civil war.
I hate to say it, but they have to let those parts go in order to have peace for the most people. Other countries have had to deal with the exact thing, often followed by population exchanges. It's difficult, if not impossible, to share your country with an ethnic group where the majority of people only want to see the demise of the country or annexation by another country. If their life's mission is to destroy the country from within and they have a "homeland" nation next door, it's probably time to send them "home", even if you have to let them take a chunk of land with them.
I don't think there is much Ukraine will be able to do about those regions. They lost control of them a long time ago and the pro-Russian side is strong enough that it would continue to be an ongoing civil war.
I hate to say it, but they have to let those parts go in order to have peace for the most people. Other countries have had to deal with the exact thing, often followed by population exchanges. It's difficult, if not impossible, to share your country with an ethnic group where the majority of people only want to see the demise of the country or annexation by another country. If their life's mission is to destroy the country from within and they have a "homeland" nation next door, it's probably time to send them "home", even if you have to let them take a chunk of land with them.
As part of a peace negotiation, Ukraine gives up those regions and, in exchange, they pursue NATO and/or EU admission?
I don't think there is much Ukraine will be able to do about those regions. They lost control of them a long time ago and the pro-Russian side is strong enough that it would continue to be an ongoing civil war.
I hate to say it, but they have to let those parts go in order to have peace for the most people. Other countries have had to deal with the exact thing, often followed by population exchanges. It's difficult, if not impossible, to share your country with an ethnic group where the majority of people only want to see the demise of the country or annexation by another country. If their life's mission is to destroy the country from within and they have a "homeland" nation next door, it's probably time to send them "home", even if you have to let them take a chunk of land with them.
If they have too, they better be getting a huge amount of money to pay for all the damage in the rest of the country, and war crimes will be punished. It should also come with a deal that should Russia make any further attempts at the territorial integrity of Ukraine, they will immediately join NATO and be afforded the protections of that alliance. Russia needs to be made fully aware Ukraine is a no-go zone from now on.
You guys are going to be quite dissapointed, eff all is going to happen to Russia, there wont be any war crimes or reperations, this is a truce not a victory
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
If they have too, they better be getting a huge amount of money to pay for all the damage in the rest of the country, and war crimes will be punished. It should also come with a deal that should Russia make any further attempts at the territorial integrity of Ukraine, they will immediately join NATO and be afforded the protections of that alliance. Russia needs to be made fully aware Ukraine is a no-go zone from now on.
As much as we want all of it, I doubt large reparations happen, the Russian's can blame the dead generals for the whole war crimes thing, and I doubt we see the convening of the ICC. The two things that Russia will get out of this are the territories and Ukraines independence.
In exchange the killings will stop.
The West will rally to rebuild Ukraine and give them access to western weapons, and things like reconstruction credits.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I don't think there is much Ukraine will be able to do about those regions. They lost control of them a long time ago and the pro-Russian side is strong enough that it would continue to be an ongoing civil war.
I hate to say it, but they have to let those parts go in order to have peace for the most people. Other countries have had to deal with the exact thing, often followed by population exchanges. It's difficult, if not impossible, to share your country with an ethnic group where the majority of people only want to see the demise of the country or annexation by another country. If their life's mission is to destroy the country from within and they have a "homeland" nation next door, it's probably time to send them "home", even if you have to let them take a chunk of land with them.
Obviously a very long time ago - but back in 1991 Ukraine did have a referendum to decide if they wanted to be independent.
Those two regions voted for independence for Ukraine with 84% saying yes.
The West will rally to rebuild Ukraine and give them access to western weapons, and things like reconstruction credits.
This could be quite huge. Ukraine was able to put up a pretty great defence, with little notice and not so great equipment. With the advantage of preparation and lots of top end weapons on the Ukrainian side, any future Russian invasions won't get very far.
An analysis of what a peace deal might look like. Neutrality (guaranteed by several third-party states) is probably in the cards. The disposition of occupied land is much tricker.
__________________
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.
Interestingly, Crimea at 54% is whooping 30% ahead of second place, that is Donbass at 84%. Back in 1991 Russia was in shambles and there was no interest on staying with it. Even Belarus broke away.
Now that Russia is heading back into poverty, there's little point for Donbass to join Russia. They would be better off joining EU/Ukraine. Donbass is not the same at all as Crimea, which is truly Russian region.
Last edited by Pointman; 03-25-2022 at 02:54 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
I've thought about it some more and I understand your perspective now.
Still, there is absolutley zero possibility of any NATO country doing anything to provoke war with a nuclear armed nation.
There will, however, be devastating economic effects from the sanctions, which will felt by the Russian people in a very profound way. I wish you and your family all the best in the very difficult times ahead.
Come on Putin, stop this d### war.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
Interestingly, Crimea at 54% is whooping 30% ahead of second place, that is Donbass at 84%. Back in 1991 Russia was in shambles and there was no interest on staying with it. Even Belarus broke away.
Now that Russia is heading back into poverty, there's little point for Donbass to join Russia. They would be better off joining EU/Ukraine. Donbass is not the same at all as Crimea, which is truly Russian region.
It did occur to me that the unforseen consequence of losing this war for Putin will be a massive drop in support for Russia in all of the 'independent' regions in both the Ukraine and around Russia, it seems likely that Belorussia and Chechnya will see massive upheavals in the next few year, the bribery money from Moscow is going to be turned off as Putin won't have the money to buy this support, same applies to the Donbass, no Russian money, food or weapons might leave them thinking a western supported relatively rich (as rebuilding brings prosperity) Ukraine is a much better bet
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Who would have thought Greece and Turkey would bury the hatchet and band together on a daring mission to save the people of Mariupol. I am so thankful Macron is leading the EU right now.
The Following User Says Thank You to starseed For This Useful Post:
I'm going to disagree here, my guess is Russia is about to go through another decade or two of hell, if I was Pointman I'd be terrified right now.
there is no good end to this for ordinary Russian's they have two possible futures, Putin stays in power but only by reverting to Stalinist levels repression while the country remains an international pariah becoming poorer than Khazakstan or Chechnya or their is a coup/civil war that takes down Putin, and the truth is while we might veiw this as our best outcome it almost certainly also brings year of upheaval, poverty and death within Russia, once again pray thanks to whichever God you believe in that we live in Canada
I was really just talking about the idea of NATO bombing Moscow. That's just not a realistic fear.
SOMETHING bad happening is extremely realistic of course. But it's much more realistic that Russia enters some kind of a civil war for example or starts breaking up internally than NATO bombing Moscow. (And no the former doesn't look at all likely either.)
As for the predictions about decades of hurt, there are always more paths than people think. Just think back how much the world suddenly changed in the last month. There are a million different possibilities for Russia ranging from rapid improvements to a completely failed state.
While it doesn't look great now, there are plenty of examples from history where the fear of things spiraling out of control lead to positive developments instead of negative ones.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
It's possible to acknowledge the necessity of death without celebrating that necessity as if is a positive good.
Stoking negative emotions is how Putin stays in power and starts his wars. Giving him validation by reinforcing the world-view that the world is out to get Russia doesn't help, does it? Explain to me how celebrating dead Russian soldiers hastens the end of the war, or cultivates a permanent end to Russian aggression. It doesn't. It's just a selfish indulgence in righteous denunciation to relieve the feeling of powerlessness engendered by witnessing horrors you have no control over.
The symbol of a dead Russian soldier in Ukraine is equal to the symbol of a captured one, both worthy of celebration because they represent results that gauge how it's going. The way to hasten an end to this conflict is for your opponents soldiers to be taken out of action as quickly and as many as possible, one of those ways is killing. And by conflict I mean every single act of horror and injustice taken place that wouldn't be possible without Russian soldiers being in Ukraine. The fewer of them alive and fighting in Ukraine, the sooner this ends.
I also hope the brave Russian POWs are being treated above and beyond the Geneva convention rules, treated as guests with dignity and given anything they need. If thousands of Russian POWs go home after a captivity that was friendly and cordial it would pay dividends for a long time. The Russians in captivity deserve nothing less, they did remove their share of the destructive power devastating Ukraine.
