Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

analogbear70 said:This guy hits the nail on the head:

It’s the same point I keep making: the West needs to dial back the rhetoric because Russia isn't going to budge. I'm convinced that de-escalating the tension could actually lead to somewhere productive. Look, let's be real—they have nuclear weapons, and that’s a reality that could end us all. Regardless of how you slice it, we need a voice of reason coming from the West, because right now, there isn't one to be found in Russia, and nobody there seems interested in finding it either.

Man, you clearly aren't getting it: you're talking about a planet that's shaking in its boots at the thought of Putin, a planet that practically deserves to be blown to smithereens.

Donna Harris11 said:I don't get why everyone is making such a huge deal out of this drama; precedents already exist anyway.

Northern Cyprus, Republika Srpska, Mexico, the Golanski plateau.

I mean, I get where the Ukrainians are coming from, but the EU's stance is just... unclear.

Look, they barely lifted a finger back in 2014, aside from some light sanctions
when the Russians took over Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea.
They finally realized that Putin's hunger for territory is massive and needs to be stopped. I don't see how you can miss that.

hiddeneagle98 said:Man, you clearly aren't getting it: you're talking about a planet that's shaking in its boots at the thought of Putin, a planet that practically deserves to be blown to smithereens.

👍 Lock this thread!

gentlestag15 said:Look, if that's the deal, fine—but that agreement only covers five commanders.
The Russians released 205 Ukrainians and 10 foreigners, which included an American guy we know.
And in exchange, they only got back 55 people plus Putin's godson.
Honestly, it's better this way than having them rot away in Russian prison cells.
Almost all the big names from Azovstal are free now, but there are still at least 2,000 more out there.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdCZ6ZyX...jpg&name=large

I wonder how the Mad King plans on spinning this to the Russian public.
First he announces a "special military operation" to "denazify Ukraine," calls for trials and death sentences for the Azov soldiers, and threatens all sorts of barbaric atrocities... then suddenly, he's sending them off to Turkey for a vacation.

It looks like his... The little oligarch... More important than the sacred mission you set for yourself... ☕

By the way, word is already getting around... The "referendum" results... 🕺

Donna Harris11 said:I don't get why everyone is making such a huge deal out of this drama; precedents already exist anyway.

Northern Cyprus, Republika Srpska, Mexico, the Golanski plateau.

I mean, I get where the Ukrainians are coming from, but the EU's stance is just... unclear.

And what about Kherson, Mariupol, or Zaporizhzhia? What exactly are they trying to annex now? Did they have their eyes on Kharkiv too?

The Ukrainians have always understood that if you hand the Donbas over to the Russians today, their appetite for more will only grow tomorrow. This whole mess is happening because back in 2014, Russia was able to take Crimea without much resistance at all. It isn't as if people in the EU or even in Ukraine are fools; we all see Putin's intentions clearly, and he’s shown us exactly who he is. That’s precisely why there was such a desperate push to join NATO. You simply can't allow a precedent to be set when the Russians harbor such a pathological hatred toward Ukrainians and won't stop until they've completely crushed them.

Donna Harris11 said:I don't get why everyone is making such a huge deal out of this drama; precedents already exist anyway.

Northern Cyprus, Republika Srpska, Mexico, the Golanski plateau.

I mean, I get where the Ukrainians are coming from, but the EU's stance is just... unclear.

There's no drama here. Unless we run out of tractors.

analogbear70 said:This guy hits the nail on the head:

It’s the same point I keep making: the West needs to dial back the rhetoric because Russia isn't going to budge. I'm convinced that de-escalating the tension could actually lead to somewhere productive. Look, let's be real—they have nuclear weapons, and that’s a reality that could end us all. Regardless of how you slice it, we need a voice of reason coming from the West, because right now, there isn't one to be found in Russia, and nobody there seems interested in finding it either.

Yeah, sure, let's just give him everything he wants because he's got the nukes. Screw that guy. He needs to get the hell out of Ukraine...

Sandra Harris2 said:I wonder how the Mad King plans on spinning this to the Russian public.
First he announces a "special military operation" to "denazify Ukraine," calls for trials and death sentences for the Azov soldiers, and threatens all sorts of barbaric atrocities... then suddenly, he's sending them off to Turkey for a vacation.

It looks like his... The little oligarch... More important than the sacred mission you set for yourself... ☕

By the way, word is already getting around... The "referendum" results... 🕺

Where on earth did you get the idea that he actually owes the Russian public an explanation?

James Chavez91 said:Look, I realize what I wrote was pretty harsh.
But I honestly think a swift, decisive response at the very beginning might have had a better shot at deterrence without leading to this massive escalation we're seeing now.
The thing people need to wrap their heads around is that right now, Putin doesn't really have many good options left—at least not for himself.
We’d all be thrilled if he just said, "Fine, I messed up, let's pull back," but that’s almost certainly not going to happen. Even the idea of his own people stepping in is unlikely, given how their whole system is built. All the key players are tied directly to him—including those famous oligarchs who wouldn't be anything without him.
What's left is a general mobilization, which is a massive double-edged sword for him—either as a tactical move in Ukraine or something else entirely—and I don't know how anyone is supposed to respond to that...?!
I'm just saying, maybe all of this could have been handled much differently at the start by actually showing some strength, rather than these endless, pointless meetings at mile-long conference tables.

(GEO) This political crisis in Ukraine has been simmering since 2014.
Every single player involved has played a part in this... from Russia to the European Union, all the way to the USA.
And obviously, everyone has their own agenda.

But look, ramping up tensions between nuclear powers is never a good move. When relations get this hostile, things get dangerous.
We could easily find ourselves staring down the barrel of a Nuclear Apocalypse, much like during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

At the end of the day, there isn't really anyone who can stand up to Russia besides the USA.
Most other NATO members are either tethered to Russia for energy or have military capabilities similar to what the US had back in 1991.

And Putin knows it.
Not once did they stop the flow of Russian gas through those Ukrainian pipelines toward the European Union. We're talking billions of dollars fueling the war machine.
Does that not tell you everything you need to know about how complicated the situation is for both Europe and Ukraine?

Rachel Barrett8 said:(GEO) This political crisis in Ukraine has been simmering since 2014.
Every single player involved has played a part in this... from Russia to the European Union, all the way to the USA.
And obviously, everyone has their own agenda.

But look, ramping up tensions between nuclear powers is never a good move. When relations get this hostile, things get dangerous.
We could easily find ourselves staring down the barrel of a Nuclear Apocalypse, much like during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

At the end of the day, there isn't really anyone who can stand up to Russia besides the USA.
Most other NATO members are either tethered to Russia for energy or have military capabilities similar to what the US had back in 1991.

And Putin knows it.
Not once did they stop the flow of Russian gas through those Ukrainian pipelines toward the European Union. We're talking billions of dollars fueling the war machine.
Does that not tell you everything you need to know about how complicated the situation is for both Europe and Ukraine?

The UK and France don't really fit that description.

Rachel Barrett8 said:(GEO) This political crisis in Ukraine has been simmering since 2014.
Every single player involved has played a part in this... from Russia to the European Union, all the way to the USA.
And obviously, everyone has their own agenda.

But look, ramping up tensions between nuclear powers is never a good move. When relations get this hostile, things get dangerous.
We could easily find ourselves staring down the barrel of a Nuclear Apocalypse, much like during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

At the end of the day, there isn't really anyone who can stand up to Russia besides the USA.
Most other NATO members are either tethered to Russia for energy or have military capabilities similar to what the US had back in 1991.

And Putin knows it.
Not once did they stop the flow of Russian gas through those Ukrainian pipelines toward the European Union. We're talking billions of dollars fueling the war machine.
Does that not tell you everything you need to know about how complicated the situation is for both Europe and Ukraine?

Whenever I read comments like that, I have to wonder what parallel universe some people are living in? 🤦

France: they aren't energy-dependent on Russia, and they certainly aren't unarmed like the US was in 1991.

Kate Lewis3 said:The UK and France don't really fit that description.

Just saw your reply. Let me correct myself: it isn't just France...

wiredtiger8 said:Where on earth did you get the idea that he actually owes the Russian public an explanation?

I mean, surely someone is going to ask about those high-profile trials they announced, or what happened to those "Nazis" being held captive?

The perfect scenario would be if Russia stopped threatening nuclear escalation and NATO stepped in directly to push the Russians out of Ukraine entirely.
That isn't going to happen.
Ukraine simply cannot win this war on its own.
Despite how incompetent the Russian military has proven to be, they can still mobilize millions of soldiers without much trouble. They have the capacity to arm them, too.

The Ukrainians refuse to settle for anything less than the full restoration of their stolen territory, yet the Russians have absolutely no intention of giving any of it back. Especially not Crimea.
I struggle to see how this ends well.

If I were forced to search for a compromise, it might look something like this...
Russia could be granted significant autonomy within Ukraine specifically in the DNL and LNR.
Regarding Crimea, the Russians could lease it for 100 years—much like the British handled Hong Kong—with a guarantee that I'm always allowed to maintain a military base there.
In exchange, Ukraine would receive massive economic aid from the West.
Over time, fueled by that economic support, Ukraine could become strong enough that the people in the DNL and LNR wouldn't even want to be associated with Russia anymore. Perhaps not in five or ten years, but certainly in fifty.

The question, naturally, is whether anyone would ever actually agree to such a deal.

Matthew Young35 said:The perfect scenario would be if Russia stopped threatening nuclear escalation and NATO stepped in directly to push the Russians out of Ukraine entirely.
That isn't going to happen.
Ukraine simply cannot win this war on its own.
Despite how incompetent the Russian military has proven to be, they can still mobilize millions of soldiers without much trouble. They have the capacity to arm them, too.

The Ukrainians refuse to settle for anything less than the full restoration of their stolen territory, yet the Russians have absolutely no intention of giving any of it back. Especially not Crimea.
I struggle to see how this ends well.

If I were forced to search for a compromise, it might look something like this...
Russia could be granted significant autonomy within Ukraine specifically in the DNL and LNR.
Regarding Crimea, the Russians could lease it for 100 years—much like the British handled Hong Kong—with a guarantee that I'm always allowed to maintain a military base there.
In exchange, Ukraine would receive massive economic aid from the West.
Over time, fueled by that economic support, Ukraine could become strong enough that the people in the DNL and LNR wouldn't even want to be associated with Russia anymore. Perhaps not in five or ten years, but certainly in fifty.

The question, naturally, is whether anyone would ever actually agree to such a deal.

Vladimir wouldn't, and frankly, neither would Vladimir. 🤣
New leadership needs to step up on both sides to strike some kind of middle ground. Otherwise, it’s just total war until one side is completely wiped out.

Joshua Myers432 said:Vladimir wouldn't, and frankly, neither would Vladimir. 🤣
New leadership needs to step up on both sides to strike some kind of middle ground. Otherwise, it’s just total war until one side is completely wiped out.

That’s exactly how this plays out.
As long as nobody decides to lean too hard on the red button.
For now, we are still looking at a war between Ukraine and Russia.

Matthew Young35 said:The perfect scenario would be if Russia stopped threatening nuclear escalation and NATO stepped in directly to push the Russians out of Ukraine entirely.
That isn't going to happen.
Ukraine simply cannot win this war on its own.
Despite how incompetent the Russian military has proven to be, they can still mobilize millions of soldiers without much trouble. They have the capacity to arm them, too.

The Ukrainians refuse to settle for anything less than the full restoration of their stolen territory, yet the Russians have absolutely no intention of giving any of it back. Especially not Crimea.
I struggle to see how this ends well.

If I were forced to search for a compromise, it might look something like this...
Russia could be granted significant autonomy within Ukraine specifically in the DNL and LNR.
Regarding Crimea, the Russians could lease it for 100 years—much like the British handled Hong Kong—with a guarantee that I'm always allowed to maintain a military base there.
In exchange, Ukraine would receive massive economic aid from the West.
Over time, fueled by that economic support, Ukraine could become strong enough that the people in the DNL and LNR wouldn't even want to be associated with Russia anymore. Perhaps not in five or ten years, but certainly in fifty.

The question, naturally, is whether anyone would ever actually agree to such a deal.

While we wait for that American weaponry to actually show up, they might just pull it off.

Despite how incompetent the Russian military actually is, they could still mobilize millions of soldiers without breaking a sweat. And they have the gear to arm them, too.

Back during World War II, Semyon Budyonny was pushing for the Red Army to just keep charging until they hit the Atlantic Ocean. Stalin, being the realist he was, basically shut him down by asking, "And who exactly is going to feed them?"

Do some homework and figure out the average number of non-combat personnel needed just to keep an army running. Logistics has always been the Russians' Achilles' heel.

Joshua Myers432 said:Vladimir wouldn't, and frankly, neither would Vladimir. 🤣
New leadership needs to step up on both sides to strike some kind of middle ground. Otherwise, it’s just total war until one side is completely wiped out.

That's only true in Russia. Between the reluctance to commit to an offensive war and the state-controlled media, things could shift very quickly there.

Ukraine isn't some medieval autocracy like Russia. Even if you factor in the corruption, swapping out the administration wouldn't change much right now. The public sentiment is pretty much aligned with the current direction, and they aren't exactly looking to roll over for the Russians or make any radical pivots.

This conflict will grind on until someone is forced to surrender militarily. Putin isn't going to step down voluntarily, and in Ukraine, a change in leadership isn't necessary or particularly useful at this stage.

The more I dwell on these protests, the more they turn my stomach.

You aren't protesting for a cause; you're protesting to save your own skin.

The time for outcry was when Russia invaded Ukraine, not now.

In short, it’s fine if Ukrainians perish as long as we stay safe—but the moment our own lives are at risk, suddenly everyone's out in the streets.

If this war had swung in Russia's favor, how many of these protesters would actually be out there?

The true patriots are sitting in prison, and if there were any more of them left, the jails wouldn't even have the room to hold them.

Christian Torres3 said:While we wait for that American weaponry to actually show up, they might just pull it off.

Despite how incompetent the Russian military actually is, they could still mobilize millions of soldiers without breaking a sweat. And they have the gear to arm them, too.

Back during World War II, Semyon Budyonny was pushing for the Red Army to just keep charging until they hit the Atlantic Ocean. Stalin, being the realist he was, basically shut him down by asking, "And who exactly is going to feed them?"

Do some homework and figure out the average number of non-combat personnel needed just to keep an army running. Logistics has always been the Russians' Achilles' heel.

Stalin managed to field armies numbering in the tens and millions, and he kept them fed.
Seventy years later, Russia can certainly manage that too.

Matthew Young35 said:Stalin managed to field armies numbering in the tens and millions, and he kept them fed.
Seventy years later, Russia can certainly manage that too.

They couldn't even properly supply what they've already sent out.