Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Matthew Young35 said:There is a difference between what would be ideal and what is actually realistic.

So what exactly is "realistic" here?

I honestly think what I'm laying out right here *is* the reality...

All that nonsense about "once the Russian boot steps on ground, they never leave..." and all that other garbage—that's what isn't real.

boldotter2 said:Well, there was World War II too. People were making all these compromises with Hitler throughout the 1930s, and yeah, that turned out pretty badly. I guess the absolute worst compromise from that whole era had to be Stalin.

Fast forward to today, and you have Putin—running on an ideology like Hitler’s, but using methods straight out of Stalin’s playbook.

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.

I think those scenarios fall short. History shows us time and again that an invading army doesn't just pack up and leave simply because the war becomes expensive or loses its initial luster. Sometimes these things drag on, sometimes they end sooner, but conflicts rarely conclude through a simple surrender or a neat little peace treaty.

That said, I wouldn't rule out a compromise similar to what you suggested. All possibilities remain on the table, but both sides still have enough grit left to keep fighting, which ensures this will likely grind on for quite some time.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Yeah, honestly, you really have to wonder how much Putin and his supporters think we're just idiots. Like, seriously, incredibly dumb. I mean, if you're literally waging an extermination war, why on earth would you be asking for the defensive alliance fighting your aggression to shrink? And let's not kid ourselves here—even Pravda was reporting that this is basically a war of annihilation against Ukraine (you know, the Final Solution to the Ukrainian question).
I guess the whole point of shrinking NATO would just be to pave the way for more conquest wars, moving Russian borders right up to NATO's doorstep—maybe even reaching Germany this time—so that "free Europe" ends up being just France and whatever is west of France. Russia really is acting like a fourth reich.

Of course. For eight years straight, they've been pushing for the "Final Solution to the Ukrainian question," calling for the destruction of Ukraine and its people, making bunkers for Ukrainians, and wanting them to hang in Times Square. They are committing ethnic cleansing and genocide, all while accusing Ukrainians of killing Russians in the Donbas—even though most people in the Donbas are actually Ukrainian. But sure, let's pretend this is just a war against NATO. And those comments from Putin about Ukraine being a mistake, or that Ukrainians don't exist and there's no such thing as the Ukrainian language? That's probably just some theatrical performance, right?
The goal is clearly to redraw maps, especially since there are so many dissatisfied borders out there today. All of Europe is being treated as Russia's sphere of influence; Putin doesn't recognize the EU or any other European nations outside of it. In his eyes, everyone needs to be under the Russian boot.

Kate Cook27 said:Most folks from Donbas actually want the Russian occupiers out so they can finally return home and live normal, peaceful lives. And honestly? Anyone who loves Russia so much can just head over there. Most people in Donbas are just waiting for the day the Ukrainian flag flies over Donetsk again—hoping that day eventually comes. They’re also hoping there won't be any deals made with local traitors—no more listening to people suggest Ukrainians should be hung in Times Square or shoved into basements in Donetsk. They just want an end to criminals coming in from Russia, breaking into homes, and kicking families out to make room for themselves. Back in 2019, about 60% of those living in occupied areas wanted Donbas to remain part of Ukraine. As for the arrogant types filled with hate for Ukraine and Ukrainians? They can all just head back to "Mother Russia."
But hey, I fully expect these referendums to show 150% wanting to join Russia. If we could actually count everyone who was killed or driven from their homes, it would probably be 500%.
I don't even know why we're wasting paper here—the results are already scripted. It's just like 2014, where they roll in with guns and force people to vote. 🤔? Or maybe they threaten people with losing their jobs? Or taking away their kids? Meanwhile, the ones being handed food aid are the ones getting off easiest. And of course, you get to vote while standing next to two guys with rifles. Go ahead, check the box saying you *don't* want to be part of Mother Russia. But don't worry—there will be observers from Belarus, Syria, South Korea, and Republika Srpska to ensure everything is "perfectly legal."

Well, this time they won't even need to force anyone to show up at a polling station. Instead, they're setting up these little "voting brigades"—essentially election officials escorted by armed cops—who will go door-to-door with lists to collect votes.
I’ve included a link featuring a quote from the lead collaborator in Zaporizhzhia.
I suspect they won't even bother with actual ballot boxes or official papers; they’ll likely just use a school notebook where you have to scribble "yes" or "no" and sign your full name.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Well, this time they won't even need to force anyone to show up at a polling station. Instead, they're setting up these little "voting brigades"—essentially election officials escorted by armed cops—who will go door-to-door with lists to collect votes.
I’ve included a link featuring a quote from the lead collaborator in Zaporizhzhia.
I suspect they won't even bother with actual ballot boxes or official papers; they’ll likely just use a school notebook where you have to scribble "yes" or "no" and sign your full name.

🤣 🤣 🤣. And then they'll claim, "Well, this is Russia now." 🤦

boldbison40 said:I think those scenarios fall short. History shows us time and again that an invading army doesn't just pack up and leave simply because the war becomes expensive or loses its initial luster. Sometimes these things drag on, sometimes they end sooner, but conflicts rarely conclude through a simple surrender or a neat little peace treaty.

That said, I wouldn't rule out a compromise similar to what you suggested. All possibilities remain on the table, but both sides still have enough grit left to keep fighting, which ensures this will likely grind on for quite some time.

The core issue isn't really about Russia or Ukraine; it's about Putin and Russia's standing on the global stage. If he starts folding or backing down now, his domestic power will take a massive hit. His whole personal brand relies on that "tough guy" persona and the image of being a brilliant strategist outsmarting a decaying West. He's bet a huge amount of political capital on this narrative.

I'm not saying this guarantees his downfall, but it definitely means a significant weakening of him personally and of Russia internationally—especially since their energy and military sectors are their primary tools for acting like a superpower.

When the US pulled out of Afghanistan, there was some mockery, sure, but it didn't change our fundamental status because our military and economic strength remained unquestioned. With Russia, those doubts surfaced within the first month of this war.

Now we're looking at a gambler who used to win through bluffing at the green felt table, but just lost a massive chunk of his chips in a single hand. Can he steady himself, grab what’s left, and walk away? Or will he act like any other addict, doubling down in the hope that luck turns around, even though that usually leads to being broke rather than breaking even?

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.

And what can I even say to that? It’s all easy to play hero when you're behind a screen. If someone actually has their finger on a nuclear trigger, you take them seriously—otherwise, all this talk is completely pointless. If things were different, the US would have moved on North Korea a long time ago. We can't let the whole world go up in flames just because of Putin's madness, or even because of Zelenskyy or Biden. If you know someone who actually has the power to pull the trigger, you should be calming them down, not egging them on. You wait patiently and let time do its work. Tens of thousands will die on both sides regardless of nuclear weapons, and nothing is going to change unless people start de-escalating.

Kate Cook27 said:Most folks from Donbas actually want the Russian occupiers out so they can finally return home and live normal, peaceful lives. And honestly? Anyone who loves Russia so much can just head over there. Most people in Donbas are just waiting for the day the Ukrainian flag flies over Donetsk again—hoping that day eventually comes. They’re also hoping there won't be any deals made with local traitors—no more listening to people suggest Ukrainians should be hung in Times Square or shoved into basements in Donetsk. They just want an end to criminals coming in from Russia, breaking into homes, and kicking families out to make room for themselves. Back in 2019, about 60% of those living in occupied areas wanted Donbas to remain part of Ukraine. As for the arrogant types filled with hate for Ukraine and Ukrainians? They can all just head back to "Mother Russia."
But hey, I fully expect these referendums to show 150% wanting to join Russia. If we could actually count everyone who was killed or driven from their homes, it would probably be 500%.
I don't even know why we're wasting paper here—the results are already scripted. It's just like 2014, where they roll in with guns and force people to vote. 🤔? Or maybe they threaten people with losing their jobs? Or taking away their kids? Meanwhile, the ones being handed food aid are the ones getting off easiest. And of course, you get to vote while standing next to two guys with rifles. Go ahead, check the box saying you *don't* want to be part of Mother Russia. But don't worry—there will be observers from Belarus, Syria, South Korea, and Republika Srpska to ensure everything is "perfectly legal."

Those locals who supported the Russians have mostly been killed off at the front; the Russians were just using them as cannon fodder...
In Donbas, the Russians were never even close to being the majority.

analogbear70 said:And what can I even say to that? It’s all easy to play hero when you're behind a screen. If someone actually has their finger on a nuclear trigger, you take them seriously—otherwise, all this talk is completely pointless. If things were different, the US would have moved on North Korea a long time ago. We can't let the whole world go up in flames just because of Putin's madness, or even because of Zelenskyy or Biden. If you know someone who actually has the power to pull the trigger, you should be calming them down, not egging them on. You wait patiently and let time do its work. Tens of thousands will die on both sides regardless of nuclear weapons, and nothing is going to change unless people start de-escalating.

The West turned a blind eye to Putin in Crimea and only slapped on some minor sanctions. So, what now? Are we supposed to look the other way again and hand over a fifth of Ukraine? In five years, will it be the whole country? Will it be everywhere Putin decides to set foot just because he has nukes?
How do you negotiate with someone who isn't looking for a deal in the first place? Someone who just wants everything his way?

It’s probably for the best that this kid, who happens to be Roman, was released with his American citizenship intact.

analogbear70 said:And what can I even say to that? It’s all easy to play hero when you're behind a screen. If someone actually has their finger on a nuclear trigger, you take them seriously—otherwise, all this talk is completely pointless. If things were different, the US would have moved on North Korea a long time ago. We can't let the whole world go up in flames just because of Putin's madness, or even because of Zelenskyy or Biden. If you know someone who actually has the power to pull the trigger, you should be calming them down, not egging them on. You wait patiently and let time do its work. Tens of thousands will die on both sides regardless of nuclear weapons, and nothing is going to change unless people start de-escalating.

Come on, stop talking nonsense... if Kim ever actually moves on South Korea, they'd crush him in two days, nukes or no nukes.
With the Russians, that’s a different story, but nobody is going to back down just because of his threats.
I am so sick of people pushing this narrative that we shouldn't "provoke" or "anger" Putin and all that garbage. It’s not just stupid; you need to stomp on that trash as much as possible... if you honestly think he’s going to drop a bomb without a single soldier even stepping foot on Russian soil—which hasn't happened and won't happen—then you're delusional.

analogbear70 said:And what can I even say to that? It’s all easy to play hero when you're behind a screen. If someone actually has their finger on a nuclear trigger, you take them seriously—otherwise, all this talk is completely pointless. If things were different, the US would have moved on North Korea a long time ago. We can't let the whole world go up in flames just because of Putin's madness, or even because of Zelenskyy or Biden. If you know someone who actually has the power to pull the trigger, you should be calming them down, not egging them on. You wait patiently and let time do its work. Tens of thousands will die on both sides regardless of nuclear weapons, and nothing is going to change unless people start de-escalating.

Nuclear peace and deterrence rely on mutual threat, not giving in to threats from others. Russia started this with a much more aggressive nuclear doctrine, and now they're threatening to use it during a war on foreign soil.

Giving in would actually break the existing nuclear balance, not act as a countermeasure. So, expecting that kind of concession isn't realistic.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Come on, stop talking nonsense... if Kim ever actually moves on South Korea, they'd crush him in two days, nukes or no nukes.
With the Russians, that’s a different story, but nobody is going to back down just because of his threats.
I am so sick of people pushing this narrative that we shouldn't "provoke" or "anger" Putin and all that garbage. It’s not just stupid; you need to stomp on that trash as much as possible... if you honestly think he’s going to drop a bomb without a single soldier even stepping foot on Russian soil—which hasn't happened and won't happen—then you're delusional.

Exactly.

analogbear70 said:And what can I even say to that? It’s all easy to play hero when you're behind a screen. If someone actually has their finger on a nuclear trigger, you take them seriously—otherwise, all this talk is completely pointless. If things were different, the US would have moved on North Korea a long time ago. We can't let the whole world go up in flames just because of Putin's madness, or even because of Zelenskyy or Biden. If you know someone who actually has the power to pull the trigger, you should be calming them down, not egging them on. You wait patiently and let time do its work. Tens of thousands will die on both sides regardless of nuclear weapons, and nothing is going to change unless people start de-escalating.

What do you mean Zelenskyy or Biden right now? Like, did they start the war or was it Putin? And "calming things down," man? That's something only Putin can actually do. Biden can't do it, and Zelenskyy can't either without basically surrendering unconditionally and letting Ukraine just vanish. If that happens, Putin is just gonna move on to annexing other countries because he'll be expecting "tension reduction."

Kate Cook27 said:The West turned a blind eye to Putin in Crimea and only slapped on some minor sanctions. So, what now? Are we supposed to look the other way again and hand over a fifth of Ukraine? In five years, will it be the whole country? Will it be everywhere Putin decides to set foot just because he has nukes?
How do you negotiate with someone who isn't looking for a deal in the first place? Someone who just wants everything his way?

If we're going to hold our ground against Russia without giving an inch, then total isolation is the only logical conclusion. Everything. We'd have to cut off gas, oil—all of it. (That would also mean stopping trade with any middlemen trying to flip those same goods, which is already happening in some ways). Plus, a complete ban on anyone from Russia entering the US or the European Union. I mean, Lavrov was just walking around New York City yesterday, so... wait a second...

And honestly? To actually stop Putin, you need the Chinese. Sadly. I suspect if they decided to turn their backs on Russia, most of this would be solved.
Right now, that seems pretty unlikely, but I guess neither side wants to deal with nuclear Armageddon or the economic domino effect triggered by Putin's specific obsessions.
Time will tell if they eventually lose patience—but until then, we're stuck following the "recipe."

bluemason3 said:The core issue isn't really about Russia or Ukraine; it's about Putin and Russia's standing on the global stage. If he starts folding or backing down now, his domestic power will take a massive hit. His whole personal brand relies on that "tough guy" persona and the image of being a brilliant strategist outsmarting a decaying West. He's bet a huge amount of political capital on this narrative.

I'm not saying this guarantees his downfall, but it definitely means a significant weakening of him personally and of Russia internationally—especially since their energy and military sectors are their primary tools for acting like a superpower.

When the US pulled out of Afghanistan, there was some mockery, sure, but it didn't change our fundamental status because our military and economic strength remained unquestioned. With Russia, those doubts surfaced within the first month of this war.

Now we're looking at a gambler who used to win through bluffing at the green felt table, but just lost a massive chunk of his chips in a single hand. Can he steady himself, grab what’s left, and walk away? Or will he act like any other addict, doubling down in the hope that luck turns around, even though that usually leads to being broke rather than breaking even?

Even if Putin announced tomorrow that all objectives were met and the Russian military was pulling out of Ukraine, I bet nothing substantial would change. The far-right would throw a tantrum on Telegram, while the majority of people would simply breathe a sigh of relief as brands like McDonald's and Zara return to the shelves. Honestly, it would be much easier for him to pull that stunt now than later, once more hundreds of thousands have been mobilized and killed, and the economy enters a death spiral—which is a mathematical certainty over the next few years. The USSR didn't collapse simply because they pulled out of Afghanistan; it collapsed because that war bled them dry, which then collided with the crash in energy prices in the late eighties, triggering a total economic meltdown.

bluemason3 said:The core issue isn't really about Russia or Ukraine; it's about Putin and Russia's standing on the global stage. If he starts folding or backing down now, his domestic power will take a massive hit. His whole personal brand relies on that "tough guy" persona and the image of being a brilliant strategist outsmarting a decaying West. He's bet a huge amount of political capital on this narrative.

I'm not saying this guarantees his downfall, but it definitely means a significant weakening of him personally and of Russia internationally—especially since their energy and military sectors are their primary tools for acting like a superpower.

When the US pulled out of Afghanistan, there was some mockery, sure, but it didn't change our fundamental status because our military and economic strength remained unquestioned. With Russia, those doubts surfaced within the first month of this war.

Now we're looking at a gambler who used to win through bluffing at the green felt table, but just lost a massive chunk of his chips in a single hand. Can he steady himself, grab what’s left, and walk away? Or will he act like any other addict, doubling down in the hope that luck turns around, even though that usually leads to being broke rather than breaking even?

Yeah, Putin cares less about his global reputation and more about his grip on things domestically. The Russian people support him, and he absolutely has to maintain that. His entire position depends on them, so he can't afford to lose this war. Honestly, he doesn't seem to care how many Russians die—he has plenty of minorities to work with, and if that means committing another genocide within his own borders, so be it. He doesn't care if he becomes a complete pariah to the rest of the world, as long as he keeps his base. That's what keeps him in power. I think he realizes by now that he can't achieve his goals with the military as it stands right now. So, this sudden "goodwill" gesture regarding the release of the Azov troops is likely just a show to pretend he's not being pushed. Meanwhile, he's waving nuclear weapons around to try and scare the West into stopping aid to Ukraine. He might even be trying to bait the UN into pressuring Ukraine toward some kind of compromise—maybe just freezing the conflict until the Russian military can get its act together. Those nuclear threats serve a purpose at home, too: showing the Russian people how powerful Russia still is. Externally, it's mostly just a bluff to see how the West reacts.
And internally, it's about making the Russians—who are fed constant propaganda—believe that the West is terrified of them and that Russia remains a global heavyweight... everything he's doing right now is just a survival tactic to stay in charge. As for mobilization, that might patch a few holes, but it's going to create a whole new set of problems.

It’s not even a fall from the 7th or 8th floor anymore, is it? I mean, who did they decide died on the stairs this time?
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...23784071372802
What’s next on the agenda—is someone going to slip on a banana peel and land headfirst into a pile of bullets?

James Chavez91 said:If we're going to hold our ground against Russia without giving an inch, then total isolation is the only logical conclusion. Everything. We'd have to cut off gas, oil—all of it. (That would also mean stopping trade with any middlemen trying to flip those same goods, which is already happening in some ways). Plus, a complete ban on anyone from Russia entering the US or the European Union. I mean, Lavrov was just walking around New York City yesterday, so... wait a second...

And honestly? To actually stop Putin, you need the Chinese. Sadly. I suspect if they decided to turn their backs on Russia, most of this would be solved.
Right now, that seems pretty unlikely, but I guess neither side wants to deal with nuclear Armageddon or the economic domino effect triggered by Putin's specific obsessions.
Time will tell if they eventually lose patience—but until then, we're stuck following the "recipe."

It seems pretty straightforward to me... just have Nancy Pelosi give Xi Jinping a call 😁

I mean, who knows? Maybe the globalist crowd is more obsessed with seeing either Russia or China collapse than actually doing anything about it.