Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Larry Sanchez7 said:In Luhansk and Donetsk, Ukrainians were actually the majority back then.

And don't even get me started on Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

So you'd just hand those regions over to Russia and then expect Ukraine to sign some deal promising they won't join NATO? They’ll make that promise "tomorrow," which basically means never, especially not given how things are looking right now...

Might as well just give Russia all of Ukraine and whatever other country they set their sights on next. Why stop there? Let's just hand over every nuclear-armed nation they want, too. Let's just stop pretending...

Terry Green3 said:Those documents are supposedly the results from the vote. Not that anyone actually doubts the population will come out at 105% in favor of joining Russia.🕺

Right—150%, because the options were just "YES" and "YES." Everyone wants to join Russia so they can have Vladimir Putin protect them—some people have been waiting thirty years for this. Honestly, they should all just buy one-way tickets to Russia and get moving.

Kate Cook27 said:So, you're basically saying everyone in Donetsk and Luhansk is pro-Russ or politically aligned with Russia, like that one user mentioned?

Well, after everything that's happened, it's a clear majority. Those regions have always been mostly Russian-leaning; just look at how people in those parts of Ukraine voted back in 1991 regarding independence. It was barely even a majority. I guess if they hadn't held onto that territory for eight years, things would be different.

This war has basically forced a massive distinction between the Ukrainian and Russian identities. Before the Maidan, being "Ukrainian" was pretty much limited to the west of the country. I mean, how many Ukrainians were speaking exclusively Ukrainian before 2014?

In the end, you just have to look at the Americans who have arrived there. Almost all of them speak Russian.

Lisa Patel4 said:I haven't wanted to chime in until now, but I'm curious about the general consensus here.

To me, this smells like a backroom deal. The West has been hinting repeatedly that Putin needs a way out. I guess some of you don't realize that the West doesn't mess around with coups or assassinations. Say they kill Putin—what then? Is there any guarantee Dmitry Medvedev won't just order Armageddon?

The Russians have shown themselves to be incompetent amateurs in this war. They've been totally humiliated. I’m not talking about morality or international law here—let's be real, the big powers don't give a damn about those anyway. Russian power was built on the concept of brute force, and now we see that force is seriously shaken.

Russia has screwed itself over long-term. Geopolitically speaking, they've turned Ukraine into a permanent, mortal enemy. They basically unified them as a nation.

My take is that nobody really wins in the end. Russia will likely annex those four regions, making it five including Crimea. They'll grab about a fifth of Ukraine, maybe 120,000 square kilometers. That's a massive chunk. To make matters worse for Ukraine, that's the economic heart of the country. It means losing access to the Sea of Azov for good.

NATO can say whatever it wants, but they won't act directly. Officially, they won't recognize the annexation, but everyone will know that once Russia takes it, it stays theirs. However, Russia has proven itself incapable. They might try to push further, but I doubt they'll take Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odesa, or Mykolaiv... mostly because the population in the areas they actually annex is largely pro-Russian. I don't see a way for Ukraine to ever get that territory back.

Honestly, if it ends there, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. They'd gain something, but effectively gain nothing. They wouldn't achieve their actual goals—they won't reach Transnistria, they won't get rid of the current leadership, and they won't erase Ukraine from the map. Putin would spin it as a win to justify the war, but he'd be left with a hostile neighbor right on his border.

Total victory scenarios are unrealistic. Whether it's a Ukrainian victory where everything is returned, or a Russian one where Ukraine is wiped out.

If I play Nostradamus:
After September 28th, when Putin gives his speech to the Duma and formally absorbs the four regions into the USA [Note: context implies the Russian Federation], Ukraine will attempt one more major offensive toward Kherson. It'll fail. The Russians will try to retake Kharkiv and head toward Odesa, where they'll suffer a disaster. Internal pressure on both sides will start ramping up. The front lines will stabilize. Russia will face increasing pressure from China and India to wrap it up. In the EU, winter will cause some governments to fall. Support for Ukraine will dwindle as inflation crushes living standards.

Sometime around March 2023, we'll see a ceasefire and a truce. At the peace talks, Ukraine will demand all its territory back, which they won't get. Russia will demand demilitarization, which they won't get either. Some sort of agreement will be signed that looks like a mix of the Korean scenario and Versailles. Both sides will be generally dissatisfied.

Ukraine will commit to not joining NATO, but they'll become the most militarized nation in the world in the coming years. Putin will declare victory, even though various factions will tear him apart for starting such a war for such tiny, almost non-existent gains. Ukraine, meanwhile, will remain a permanently frustrated state, missing a huge portion of its land.

In my opinion, it'll be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. A very hollow one, and highly questionable in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin later forces Lukashenko to formally join Russia.

My take? This war keeps going until every last Russian occupier leaves Ukraine. Maybe the "silent deal" involved Crimea. If they want to trigger Armageddon, let them—they clearly value their own lives more than anyone else's.

Lisa Patel4 said:Well, after everything that's happened, it's a clear majority. Those regions have always been mostly Russian-leaning; just look at how people in those parts of Ukraine voted back in 1991 regarding independence. It was barely even a majority. I guess if they hadn't held onto that territory for eight years, things would be different.

This war has basically forced a massive distinction between the Ukrainian and Russian identities. Before the Maidan, being "Ukrainian" was pretty much limited to the west of the country. I mean, how many Ukrainians were speaking exclusively Ukrainian before 2014?

In the end, you just have to look at the Americans who have arrived there. Almost all of them speak Russian.

Good grief, man. In the independence referendum, 92.26% of the population voted 'yes.'

92.26%

It’s pretty clear you’re working with completely broken data to build an argument that feels logical to you but is actually pure nonsense. You might want to double-check your facts.

Honestly, looking back, it feels like the West totally dropped the ball in 2008, and especially in 2014 when the aggressor had already made their move.

If the West had actually realized what was coming in 2014, we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of this mess today.

Sure, Russia could line up 200k troops on the border, but if the West had been ready, they could've countered with a million even faster through sheer political leverage—like, "you pull those 200k back, and we'll drop a million on you."

If those guys bring another 800k, the West should really show some teeth and deploy three times that amount.

Let Russia try to calculate their odds then. Since 2014, there’s been more than enough time to absolutely crush Russia's gas monopoly and other assets.

The real issue is the West didn't stop "everyone"—they just jumped in way too late.

After 2014, the West needed to be ready to react massively to any troop buildup. It's like... you don't need a fire extinguisher just to start a fire, you need it so when things start burning, you can put them out immediately...

Plain and simple, the West reacted too late, and now we're stuck with an uncertain future because of it.

Russia wouldn't have even bothered attacking if the West had pushed back back in January when they started massing troops or doing those "military exercises."

If they run drills targeting specific vehicles, we should do the exact same thing, but three or five times harder. Let them sit there and wonder what's coming.

Instead, we ended up in this situation where we're short on energy and waited so long to act that by the time we stepped up, they'd already seized a fifth of the country. Even my grandma would say

Lisa Patel4 said:Well, after everything that's happened, it's a clear majority. Those regions have always been mostly Russian-leaning; just look at how people in those parts of Ukraine voted back in 1991 regarding independence. It was barely even a majority. I guess if they hadn't held onto that territory for eight years, things would be different.

This war has basically forced a massive distinction between the Ukrainian and Russian identities. Before the Maidan, being "Ukrainian" was pretty much limited to the west of the country. I mean, how many Ukrainians were speaking exclusively Ukrainian before 2014?

In the end, you just have to look at the Americans who have arrived there. Almost all of them speak Russian.

But what did the voting actually look like in '91?

The West basically bailed on us back in '91...

Larry Sanchez7 said:In Luhansk and Donetsk, Ukrainians were actually the majority back then.

And don't even get me started on Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

So you'd just hand those regions over to Russia and then expect Ukraine to sign some deal promising they won't join NATO? They’ll make that promise "tomorrow," which basically means never, especially not given how things are looking right now...

The issue is that most people there are Russian-speaking Ukrainians. And clearly, they don't support the Kyiv regime, because if they did, the DPR would have existed for eight years already—complete with militias and local guards.

Like I said, identity is the core problem here. How else do you explain why the Russian army took the areas with Russian-speaking populations, yet got totally wrecked everywhere else?

It's not like I have anything to give anyone when I've got nothing left myself. Ukraine screwed up by not agreeing to military neutrality. Anyone with half a brain can see this could end up being the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis. Would the USA tolerate an equivalent of Times Square happening in Mexico?

Quick side note: it’s funny how they suddenly start screaming about a referendum!

While they were just charging ahead and gaining absolutely zero ground through any kind of vote.

Their whole tactic was basically "just keep pushing until we hit a wall," and then—bam—suddenly it's an emergency referendum.

If this counteroffensive hadn't happened, there wouldn't even be a conversation about a referendum; they would've just kept grinding out kilometer after kilometer for another two years if they had to.

But the second they realized that everything they grabbed was just a temporary gain and they're still stuck? Suddenly, it's "oh no, we need a referendum right now!"

It's like chess, you know? You don't just charge blindly into a mess if your opening moves and attacks aren't actually working. Once the opponent stabilizes and shuts down your momentum, that's when things fall apart.

Lisa Patel4 said:Well, after everything that's happened, it's a clear majority. Those regions have always been mostly Russian-leaning; just look at how people in those parts of Ukraine voted back in 1991 regarding independence. It was barely even a majority. I guess if they hadn't held onto that territory for eight years, things would be different.

This war has basically forced a massive distinction between the Ukrainian and Russian identities. Before the Maidan, being "Ukrainian" was pretty much limited to the west of the country. I mean, how many Ukrainians were speaking exclusively Ukrainian before 2014?

In the end, you just have to look at the Americans who have arrived there. Almost all of them speak Russian.

Man, someone is feeding you some seriously bad intel.

Even in "Russian" Luhansk and Donetsk, the numbers were over 83%...

Sure, there's a huge Russian-speaking population there, but that doesn't mean they actually want to run back into Mother Russia's arms...

Part of the reason everyone speaks Russian there is just because of the Russians living there, being right on the border, and how the Ukrainian language was treated back under the USSR...

Larry Sanchez7 said:Man, someone is feeding you some seriously bad intel.

Even in "Russian" Luhansk and Donetsk, the numbers were over 83%...

Sure, there's a huge Russian-speaking population there, but that doesn't mean they actually want to run back into Mother Russia's arms...

Part of the reason everyone speaks Russian there is just because of the Russians living there, being right on the border, and how the Ukrainian language was treated back under the USSR...

I’d love to see that 83% independence figure actually hold up in places like Donetsk and Luhansk.

Lisa Patel4 said:The issue is that most people there are Russian-speaking Ukrainians. And clearly, they don't support the Kyiv regime, because if they did, the DPR would have existed for eight years already—complete with militias and local guards.

Like I said, identity is the core problem here. How else do you explain why the Russian army took the areas with Russian-speaking populations, yet got totally wrecked everywhere else?

It's not like I have anything to give anyone when I've got nothing left myself. Ukraine screwed up by not agreeing to military neutrality. Anyone with half a brain can see this could end up being the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis. Would the USA tolerate an equivalent of Times Square happening in Mexico?

Furthermore, prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USA landed 300,000 troops on Cuba specifically to respond to a communist-style Maidan in Cuba. Isn't that right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991...ion_referendum

There were actually two different referendums. In the first one, Ukraine voted to stay part of the Soviet Union, I guess.

Lisa Patel4 said:The issue is that most people there are Russian-speaking Ukrainians. And clearly, they don't support the Kyiv regime, because if they did, the DPR would have existed for eight years already—complete with militias and local guards.

Like I said, identity is the core problem here. How else do you explain why the Russian army took the areas with Russian-speaking populations, yet got totally wrecked everywhere else?

It's not like I have anything to give anyone when I've got nothing left myself. Ukraine screwed up by not agreeing to military neutrality. Anyone with half a brain can see this could end up being the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis. Would the USA tolerate an equivalent of Times Square happening in Mexico?

Ukraine's mistake was being too naive. Ukrainians wanted into the European Union to finally shake off the Russian boot, while Putin wanted to negotiate with the European Union using Ukraine as his proxy—acting like Ukrainians don't have a say in their own lives. And Yanukovych? He went along with it because he wanted more luxury yachts. Before 2014, maybe 80% of Ukrainians were against NATO, but now I hope they join soon. Sure, "military neutrality" sounds good on paper, but it's hard when your neighbor refuses to recognize your statehood, your history, or your culture...

Lisa Patel4 said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991...ion_referendum

There were actually two different referendums. In the first one, Ukraine voted to stay part of the Soviet Union, I guess.

See, that was a nationwide vote covering the entire Soviet Union, and it was specifically about how to reorganize the USSR as a whole.

So, you really can't look at that as a referendum on Ukrainian independence.

Lisa Patel4 said:Well, after everything that's happened, it's a clear majority. Those regions have always been mostly Russian-leaning; just look at how people in those parts of Ukraine voted back in 1991 regarding independence. It was barely even a majority. I guess if they hadn't held onto that territory for eight years, things would be different.

This war has basically forced a massive distinction between the Ukrainian and Russian identities. Before the Maidan, being "Ukrainian" was pretty much limited to the west of the country. I mean, how many Ukrainians were speaking exclusively Ukrainian before 2014?

In the end, you just have to look at the Americans who have arrived there. Almost all of them speak Russian.

They held it by forcing people out and killing Ukrainians. They kept people in basements—it’s horrific stuff. They treated criminals from Russia and the DLNR/Novorossiya as patriots while they were busy killing Ukrainians. Language isn't really the point here. No—there are still folks there waiting for the "liberation" of Donetsk and Luhansk, hoping to see the Ukrainian flag back up. If the Russian occupiers leave for Russia, they can take everyone who actually wants to live under Russian rule with them.

hollowdriver13 said:See, that was a nationwide vote covering the entire Soviet Union, and it was specifically about how to reorganize the USSR as a whole.

So, you really can't look at that as a referendum on Ukrainian independence.

Actually, I think you can. And honestly? Like, 150% of people voted to join Russia. At this rate, they might as well just annex Odessa, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and whatever else they feel like grabbing.

darkwalker1 said:Good grief, man. In the independence referendum, 92.26% of the population voted 'yes.'

92.26%

It’s pretty clear you’re working with completely broken data to build an argument that feels logical to you but is actually pure nonsense. You might want to double-check your facts.

Like I said, there were two referendums. The second one happened after the Belovezhskaya Pushcha meeting where the breakup of the union was actually settled.

George Robinson43 said:Furthermore, prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USA landed 300,000 troops on Cuba specifically to respond to a communist-style Maidan in Cuba. Isn't that right?

No, it was because Khrushchev was playing big leader. Just as the USA had every right to wipe out any Red Army soldier in Cuba back then, I suppose Russians have every right to wipe out any NATO soldier in Ukraine. Only a fool would go provoking a nuclear power right on its doorstep. Honestly, there are lines you just don't cross. Ever.

Kate Cook27 said:Ukraine's mistake was being too naive. Ukrainians wanted into the European Union to finally shake off the Russian boot, while Putin wanted to negotiate with the European Union using Ukraine as his proxy—acting like Ukrainians don't have a say in their own lives. And Yanukovych? He went along with it because he wanted more luxury yachts. Before 2014, maybe 80% of Ukrainians were against NATO, but now I hope they join soon. Sure, "military neutrality" sounds good on paper, but it's hard when your neighbor refuses to recognize your statehood, your history, or your culture...

The West shot itself in the foot. Instead of telling Ukraine to stay neutral and pushing them toward the EU using an Austrian-style model—effectively taking all the cards out of the Kremlin's hand and turning Ukraine into an economy more prosperous than Russia—they brought in a brain trust that voted to ban the Russian language. It’s pretty obvious that Americans are just a bunch of unintelligent cowboys.

Kate Cook27 said:They held it by forcing people out and killing Ukrainians. They kept people in basements—it’s horrific stuff. They treated criminals from Russia and the DLNR/Novorossiya as patriots while they were busy killing Ukrainians. Language isn't really the point here. No—there are still folks there waiting for the "liberation" of Donetsk and Luhansk, hoping to see the Ukrainian flag back up. If the Russian occupiers leave for Russia, they can take everyone who actually wants to live under Russian rule with them.

There are some left, but very few; such groups were ethnically cleansed from the RAO country long ago.