How sweet. So they can just annex territory whenever they feel like it? Everything being annexed is Russia, and if you dare touch anything they've claimed, you're looking at a missile strike.
Just hand over Crimea and call it a day, right? Oops, that’s exactly what he said.
And why stop there? Why not just grab Donbas and Lugansk too? Oh, and let's not forget Zaporizhzhia, Transnistria, and Moldova—just take them all. Wait, what about Gdansk? We were practically there once, so why not just claim that as well?
And considering how people have been subjected to horrific genital mutilation during torture, being stuck in Turkey until this war unravels feels like winning the lottery.
Leaving right now is where I struggle. If you’re truly this opposed to the regime, you should have walked away a long time ago.
As it stands, it looks like you're just looking out for your own skin. While I believe there are plenty of defectors who genuinely don't want to kill anyone, there are probably just as many who simply don't want to die.
The issue here is that you should have left much sooner.
From a moral standpoint, this is your country; if you can't live with its direction, then protest and accept the consequences of going to prison. An American government can't function if 20 million people are behind bars.
And if you're already this much of an opponent—if you don't even view Russia as a homeland worth sacrificing everything for, including your freedom—then why didn't you leave earlier?
There really isn't any other way to look at it. First it was Crimea, and then he claimed he had no interest in anything else—yet here we are, seeing that he clearly does. It seems there's no end to these dictators hungry for someone else's territory.
We are nowhere near a resolution here. Putin controls both the machinery of state and the security apparatus. His system is insulated; he doesn't step foot on the battlefield, staying comfortably ensconced in repression, well-fed and far from the front lines, with the power to imprison anyone in his path. That machine is utterly loyal to him.
The Russians have engineered their own dictatorial monster, building a surrounding infrastructure that is practically indestructible.
Meanwhile, ordinary people are sent to the trenches where their only focus is survival—they'll be forced to kill just to stay alive and avoid a prison cell.
It's a tragedy for everyone involved.
I wouldn't bet against Russia ultimately emerging as the "winners." After years of this grueling war, there's no rush for Putin and his regime. This is their status quo, and I suspect they are actually thriving on it; their grip on power and capacity for repression only seem to grow.
Nothing has actually changed here. This notion that Putin might just decide to pull back? Where is that coming from? He’ll keep fighting as long as there are citizens left to lose; he couldn't care less about the casualties as long as he stays in power. Finances? He doesn't give a damn.
He's just signaling that negotiations are necessary, using referendums and mobilization to manufacture some kind of leverage.
The fundamental issue remains: how do you negotiate when someone has occupied another sovereign nation?
This cycle will drag on for years. Unless the rules of the game change—and really, the only rule that matters is who holds power in Russia.
So the tables have turned; Ukrainians are making the ultimate sacrifice against the occupiers.
It’s going to be ugly, but I don't see any outcome other than a Ukrainian victory. They have the numbers, they have the moral high ground, they have that righteous fury driving them forward, and the weapons are finally arriving.
On Putin's side, there is only a weak Europe that will slowly sink because of this. But honestly, isn't a bit of economic hardship better than living under a Russian boot? It is painfully obvious what kind of future awaits anyone under that regime or allied with such a "friend."
It was all well and good while it lasted, but sometimes a cold shower is exactly what you need to get the blood pumping.
The correlation is obvious: the closer Russia gets to defeat, the higher the likelihood they'll resort to either a tactical bomb or a general mobilization.
Which path Putin chooses remains anyone's guess.
A mobilization is the safer bet politically, but it risks turning the public against him, making the whole "special operation" look like a massive blunder.
On the other hand, a tactical strike carries a much higher risk of escalation, even if it offers more cover for Putin—provided he can find a pretext, such as
a) a staged Ukrainian attack using unconventional weapons against the mainland, b) the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk, justifying any strikes on those regions as direct attacks on the US.
Sure, the biggest mistake people make is assuming this is all being done in Russia's best interest. Everything we've seen so far has actually backfired on Russia and its citizens, regardless of how you look at the timeline.
That’s why I wouldn't be shocked by some "desperation moves." He’s backed himself into a corner of his own making. Winning this war on the battlefield seems impossible unless he calls for a general mobilization—which, let's face it, might be the only thing capable of actually toppling him.
So, it wouldn't surprise me if he drops a smaller bomb on a section of the front where it won't cause a massive massacre, but will serve to freeze the lines. It seems he'd rather gamble against NATO than risk a full-scale mobilization.
Think about it: stage a referendum, perhaps fabricate a scenario involving a Ukrainian chemical attack from a NATO lab on Russian soil, and then launch a retaliation strike.
But honestly? I think the Ukrainians are in a "pay the price" mindset for everything; they'd likely keep pushing even after a strike like that.
Either way, I see tactical mobilization happening before general mobilization, simply because the personal risk to Putin is much lower.
It wasn't some narrative pushed by Russ propagandists that got me thinking about tactical shifts—I have no interest in swallowing that bait. It was simply the sheer insistence on holding an emergency referendum to annex territory right at the moment it’s being lost.
Honestly, I don't see how any of this changes the reality on the ground. The war will play out its course regardless; neither Ukraine nor anyone else is going to stop what they're doing just because of these possibilities.
We’re looking at the desperate moves of someone backed into a corner. The strategist has trapped himself; there's no way out, and nobody from the inside can pull him out of this mess. He’s running out of time at the end of his career.
A tactical strike on Ukraine to freeze the status quo doesn't seem entirely unthinkable, given the massive likelihood that no one—specifically the Americans—will actually respond to a tactical move in Donetsk or Lugansk of RF.
Total tactical isolation, a frozen front line, and then the Russians sit back hoping to jumpstart negotiations from that position.
I’m not sure why my input is being dismissed as useless.
Why push for an immediate referendum when you're losing ground on the battlefield and stuck in such a hopeless spot?
The only logic I see behind a move like that is annexation—triggering that clause about protecting the Russian Federation's existence.
As long as Donetsk and Luhansk remain outside the Russian Federation, that clause simply can't be invoked. You can't drop nukes on Ukraine, but on a country that attacked the Russian Federation? That's a different story.
And I'm talking tactical bombs here, not strategic ones; surely you know the difference.
So, I suppose this is all about immediate escalation? Is the logical next step just a tactical nuke since they want to strike at the heart of the Russian Federation?
It feels like pure desperation. If they actually drop a bomb, we’re looking at a total freeze—a complete severance of everything possible with Russia.
I suspect the European Union would follow up by slapping sanctions on any nation still trading with the Russian Federation, including China. It’s a move that threatens to plunge everyone into widespread poverty.
The Russians might not go hungry, but they'll certainly be sent fifty years back in time.
Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, sure, the war could have ended way back in 1939 too. Instead of all these villains sending young kids off to defend their countries, they probably should've just let Adolf Hitler take over everything and turn Eurasia into his own little empire. 😵😵🙏
Just swap out the players for the 2022 version and you'll have your answer.