Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

bluemason3 said:The difference today is that we actually have hard data—mathematical models, economic simulations, social experiments, and historical precedents. All of it points to the same thing: giving in to outside pressure is almost always a losing strategy. That’s assuming we ignore the messy variables like the balance of power, old grudges, or existing debts that complicate the math, but the core principle remains the same.

In short, when it comes to fighting for influence, resources, or power, the eye-for-an-eye approach still seems to be the most effective long-term play.

Whether you're looking at schoolyard bullies or massive economic competitions, neither bowing to the bully nor becoming one pays off in the end.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's the perfect move in every single scenario. But since nobody has a crystal ball, it's more logical to pick the tactic that's statistically likely to work.

Even if Putin tried to wipe out Ukraine, the only sensible and proportional response right now is to take down Putin.👍

Fine, but let's hope he doesn't just get swapped out for some "reasonable" or "cooperative" version of Putin for a little while.

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.

I agree. To prevent a truly dangerous escalation, we have to leave room for compromise regarding the occupied territories. The reason is simple: beyond Vladimir Putin, there are clearly enough irrational actors within the Russian ranks who wouldn't care if their own lives—or the lives of all humanity—were extinguished. Whether they've had too much vodka or not, it makes no difference. We always suspected there were plenty of those types holding what is, unfortunately, a theoretical grip on nuclear weapons.

I just hope that once this settles, Russia doesn't start eyeing other regions; otherwise, the worst-case scenario becomes inevitable. I also hope the West isn't foolish enough to keep flooding those newly claimed Russian territories with massive shipments of weaponry. If both sides break this understanding, it means neither side possesses common sense, and we can all expect a very ugly outcome. I really hope self-preservation wins out over everything else, because frankly, morality and humanity vanished long ago. Ukraine will end up being the loser one way or another, but they brought this on themselves. The world shouldn't risk its own skin for the sake of their "democracy"—which, let's be honest, is mostly just rampant corruption and a dysfunctional society.

Carol Johnson21 said:They aren't lunatics; this is just propaganda manufactured for domestic and international consumption.
Isn't it grotesque that so many Westerners support, or claim to be "neutral" toward, a state threatening them with nuclear annihilation?
If the roles were reversed, how much empathy would Russians show for such threats?

In that light, the wave of Russian emigration into Europe is actually quite concerning to me.

Yesterday, Professor Barić shared some rather intriguing insights during his "Weekly Interview." He also harbors doubts about whether anyone can truly stand up to Vladimir Putin. But the most fascinating point was his discussion regarding "national grief over the collapse of the USSR"—essentially, most Russians haven't quite swallowed the idea of losing territories from the former union. He even labeled Navalny as a nationalist (remember the stance on Crimea?), who is now wisely remaining silent on the matter.

He also noted that the idea that this war benefits Americans is fundamentally flawed. The US was trying to keep Putin at bay while marking China as their primary global rival. With this sudden excursion into Ukraine, the US finds itself facing two fronts simultaneously—something they certainly didn't need.

It isn't true that this war serves the interests of the USA.

He emphasized that the notion of this war benefiting the USA is incorrect.

- Joe Biden primarily wanted to focus on China, which is why he offered Vladimir Putin a "status quo" back in the summer of 2021. They didn't want Russia meddling in what America considers its number one adversary. Now, the US will be forced to fight on two fronts—against Russia and against China—and that comes with a massive price tag, according to Barić.

Look, those "Westerners" are soaking up Russian propaganda, whether they realize they're doing it or not—or maybe they're just plain terrified. Honestly. So many of them have swallowed this whole narrative that the patient Russians were just pushed to the edge by NATO refusing to sit down at the table or give them any real respect. Every single alternative media outlet has been pushing that exact same line for years now.

Kimberly Perez82 said:I agree. To prevent a truly dangerous escalation, we have to leave room for compromise regarding the occupied territories. The reason is simple: beyond Vladimir Putin, there are clearly enough irrational actors within the Russian ranks who wouldn't care if their own lives—or the lives of all humanity—were extinguished. Whether they've had too much vodka or not, it makes no difference. We always suspected there were plenty of those types holding what is, unfortunately, a theoretical grip on nuclear weapons.

I just hope that once this settles, Russia doesn't start eyeing other regions; otherwise, the worst-case scenario becomes inevitable. I also hope the West isn't foolish enough to keep flooding those newly claimed Russian territories with massive shipments of weaponry. If both sides break this understanding, it means neither side possesses common sense, and we can all expect a very ugly outcome. I really hope self-preservation wins out over everything else, because frankly, morality and humanity vanished long ago. Ukraine will end up being the loser one way or another, but they brought this on themselves. The world shouldn't risk its own skin for the sake of their "democracy"—which, let's be honest, is mostly just rampant corruption and a dysfunctional society.

There is zero chance the West, specifically the USA, agrees to that. Maybe Crimea and some form of autonomy for those regions. And even then, only if the pressure on the global economy becomes too much due to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia. Otherwise, they'll just crush Russia. Let’s be honest: Russia really overplayed its hand here.

George Robinson43 said:A small-town guy might talk big about shooting, but the moment things get heavy, he'll be the first one hopping on a tractor and heading for the hills.

I was watching his announcement yesterday and his latest update on YouTube.
That part really stuck out to me—he's acting all heartbroken that they swapped prisoners who were actually facing death sentences. He'd have just shot them himself.
Sure, you can trade the others, but those guys on death row? He'd definitely pull the trigger.
He even called the Azov commanders "Indians" who were just barking orders that nobody followed.

And about that whole shooting business... I wonder if he'd hold everyone to those same standards if a Ukrainian woman captured him while he was serving with some rebel unit in Ukraine...

Kimberly Perez82 said:I realize some people here are incredibly sensitive about this topic, which explains the outbursts, but so far, besides one single forum member, nobody has actually attempted to answer the core question: how do we stop an irrational individual who has 6,000 nuclear warheads at his disposal? Aside from the compromise I mentioned earlier, I don't see any other path forward, and I might be 100% wrong—truly, I would love to hear better solutions. But please, suggest solutions that won't drive the entire world into a nuclear catastrophe. For instance, suggesting we defeat the military Putin at any cost is out of the question, because we all know exactly how that scenario would likely conclude. I assume that isn't anyone's goal, and the US is clearly aware of that, given how extremely cautious their reactions have been. So, let’s hear them. What are your proposals?

This issue didn't just pop up this year, nor did it start back in 2014. This problem was baked in long ago, right after WWII, when the USA allowed the USSR to churn out nuclear warheads like they were cans of beans in a grocery store. We've been dealing with this escalating tension for years, and now we've reached the absolute peak. And while we're on the subject, it's worth noting that several of the leading politicians within the USSR were actually Ukrainian.

You're jumping down everyone's throat like a madman, but you completely dodged my one actual question.

What happens when Putin or whoever else decides to demand even more? Like, what if we give him everything now, and then in six months he just says, "Hey, lift the sanctions" or "Or I start dropping nukes"? Or a year later it's, "Give me Odessa? How about Moldova? Or the Baltic?" Seriously, why wouldn't he keep pushing if he can get whatever he wants that easily??

We're stuck dealing with a lunatic and there's no magic fix. You gotta squeeze him—if he backs down, great; if not, well, that's the end. Period. There's no deep philosophy here. That's just what happens when you're dealing with a total idiot.

It's obvious you're scared—you probably have kids or something—but hey, that's life. If it makes you feel better, just sell everything, grab the kids, and run off to Patagonia. Whining on a forum isn't going to change anything.

Kimberly Perez82 said:I agree. To prevent a truly dangerous escalation, we have to leave room for compromise regarding the occupied territories. The reason is simple: beyond Vladimir Putin, there are clearly enough irrational actors within the Russian ranks who wouldn't care if their own lives—or the lives of all humanity—were extinguished. Whether they've had too much vodka or not, it makes no difference. We always suspected there were plenty of those types holding what is, unfortunately, a theoretical grip on nuclear weapons.

I just hope that once this settles, Russia doesn't start eyeing other regions; otherwise, the worst-case scenario becomes inevitable. I also hope the West isn't foolish enough to keep flooding those newly claimed Russian territories with massive shipments of weaponry. If both sides break this understanding, it means neither side possesses common sense, and we can all expect a very ugly outcome. I really hope self-preservation wins out over everything else, because frankly, morality and humanity vanished long ago. Ukraine will end up being the loser one way or another, but they brought this on themselves. The world shouldn't risk its own skin for the sake of their "democracy"—which, let's be honest, is mostly just rampant corruption and a dysfunctional society.

So, what, we just hand Russia every territory they want to maintain some kind of "fake peace"? And how exactly is Ukraine to blame for this war?
And it's not just Russia—should we just give every country with nukes whatever they ask for?

Kimberly Perez82 said:I agree. To prevent a truly dangerous escalation, we have to leave room for compromise regarding the occupied territories. The reason is simple: beyond Vladimir Putin, there are clearly enough irrational actors within the Russian ranks who wouldn't care if their own lives—or the lives of all humanity—were extinguished. Whether they've had too much vodka or not, it makes no difference. We always suspected there were plenty of those types holding what is, unfortunately, a theoretical grip on nuclear weapons.

I just hope that once this settles, Russia doesn't start eyeing other regions; otherwise, the worst-case scenario becomes inevitable. I also hope the West isn't foolish enough to keep flooding those newly claimed Russian territories with massive shipments of weaponry. If both sides break this understanding, it means neither side possesses common sense, and we can all expect a very ugly outcome. I really hope self-preservation wins out over everything else, because frankly, morality and humanity vanished long ago. Ukraine will end up being the loser one way or another, but they brought this on themselves. The world shouldn't risk its own skin for the sake of their "democracy"—which, let's be honest, is mostly just rampant corruption and a dysfunctional society.

Being realistic, we already saw how that "silent" deal regarding Crimea played out, and we know exactly where it led us.

gentlerider7 said:Look, those "Westerners" are soaking up Russian propaganda, whether they realize they're doing it or not—or maybe they're just plain terrified. Honestly. So many of them have swallowed this whole narrative that the patient Russians were just pushed to the edge by NATO refusing to sit down at the table or give them any real respect. Every single alternative media outlet has been pushing that exact same line for years now.

Exactly. This recent obfuscation from Sergey Lavrov is just more of the same—feeding a specific narrative to a highly agitated local population and those already halfway hooked on their propaganda.
Just look at the situation regarding a potential new Government in Italy. Lavrov can't exactly stand up at the UN and admit that Russia is conquering a sovereign nation despite having signed a non-aggression pact that those Westerners were supposed to guarantee. Instead, he sticks to the script that is clearly still being sold.

Joshua Myers432 said:There is zero chance the West, specifically the USA, agrees to that. Maybe Crimea and some form of autonomy for those regions. And even then, only if the pressure on the global economy becomes too much due to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia. Otherwise, they'll just crush Russia. Let’s be honest: Russia really overplayed its hand here.

First off, Americans aren't going to forgive them for meddling in domestic politics.

Why don't they just head to Belarus? It would be way easier to track and hit them with sanctions over there. Or is there some other reason for this?

Arthur Miller7 said:You're jumping down everyone's throat like a madman, but you completely dodged my one actual question.

What happens when Putin or whoever else decides to demand even more? Like, what if we give him everything now, and then in six months he just says, "Hey, lift the sanctions" or "Or I start dropping nukes"? Or a year later it's, "Give me Odessa? How about Moldova? Or the Baltic?" Seriously, why wouldn't he keep pushing if he can get whatever he wants that easily??

We're stuck dealing with a lunatic and there's no magic fix. You gotta squeeze him—if he backs down, great; if not, well, that's the end. Period. There's no deep philosophy here. That's just what happens when you're dealing with a total idiot.

It's obvious you're scared—you probably have kids or something—but hey, that's life. If it makes you feel better, just sell everything, grab the kids, and run off to Patagonia. Whining on a forum isn't going to change anything.

Exactly. If we cave to Putin right now just because he's waving nuclear weapons around, what's stopping him from aiming for all of Europe and stretching all the way to Lisbon? If he doesn't get it, he just bombs everything. It's basically "go big or go home" with guys like him.

Kimberly Perez82 said:I agree. To prevent a truly dangerous escalation, we have to leave room for compromise regarding the occupied territories. The reason is simple: beyond Vladimir Putin, there are clearly enough irrational actors within the Russian ranks who wouldn't care if their own lives—or the lives of all humanity—were extinguished. Whether they've had too much vodka or not, it makes no difference. We always suspected there were plenty of those types holding what is, unfortunately, a theoretical grip on nuclear weapons.

I just hope that once this settles, Russia doesn't start eyeing other regions; otherwise, the worst-case scenario becomes inevitable. I also hope the West isn't foolish enough to keep flooding those newly claimed Russian territories with massive shipments of weaponry. If both sides break this understanding, it means neither side possesses common sense, and we can all expect a very ugly outcome. I really hope self-preservation wins out over everything else, because frankly, morality and humanity vanished long ago. Ukraine will end up being the loser one way or another, but they brought this on themselves. The world shouldn't risk its own skin for the sake of their "democracy"—which, let's be honest, is mostly just rampant corruption and a dysfunctional society.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chamberlain... it looks like you haven't learned a single thing from history!

Lisa Jackson7 said:Fine, but let's hope he doesn't just get swapped out for some "reasonable" or "cooperative" version of Putin for a little while.

Things are going to get worse. Unless there's a total military defeat—imagine an Abrams rolling through Times Square.

Carol Johnson21 said:Exactly. This recent obfuscation from Sergey Lavrov is just more of the same—feeding a specific narrative to a highly agitated local population and those already halfway hooked on their propaganda.
Just look at the situation regarding a potential new Government in Italy. Lavrov can't exactly stand up at the UN and admit that Russia is conquering a sovereign nation despite having signed a non-aggression pact that those Westerners were supposed to guarantee. Instead, he sticks to the script that is clearly still being sold.

They basically cast a wide net to catch anyone who has some reason to loathe the USA and the West, offering a customized flavor of nonsense to everyone: they give the leftists the "extreme NATO militarism" angle, tell the right-wingers about "Christian Russia" vs. the "gay West," scare the undecided folks by claiming they'll freeze without gas or that Biden wants an atomic war, tell Africans they're starving because of Western sanctions, and then there's the whole bit about Ukrainians, and so on and so forth.

Justin Palmer20 said:Why don't they just head to Belarus? It would be way easier to track and hit them with sanctions over there. Or is there some other reason for this?

Lukashenko would just send them right back. They’re practically one single state. There are no borders.

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, I already told you.

First it was "Russia is militarily unbeatable."

Then it switched to "Russia is only using 10% of its army."

Now it's "Russia is totally incompetent, but since they might drop nukes, we better just give them everything."

It is all very easy for you people to act brave when it involves risking someone else's children. Honestly, it’s quite something how much everyone suddenly cares about the democracy of some distant country—a place most of you couldn't even point to on a map six months ago. I will say it again: this is absolutely not the moment for the hawks who would happily sacrifice foreign kids for the sake of a hollow concept of democracy that doesn't truly exist anywhere. No, what we need right now is common sense, extreme caution, and a genuine push for compromise so we don't all end up facing a global catastrophe. The only logical path forward is to provide Putin with a way to step back without looking like a complete loser.

Arthur Miller7 said:You're jumping down everyone's throat like a madman, but you completely dodged my one actual question.

What happens when Putin or whoever else decides to demand even more? Like, what if we give him everything now, and then in six months he just says, "Hey, lift the sanctions" or "Or I start dropping nukes"? Or a year later it's, "Give me Odessa? How about Moldova? Or the Baltic?" Seriously, why wouldn't he keep pushing if he can get whatever he wants that easily??

We're stuck dealing with a lunatic and there's no magic fix. You gotta squeeze him—if he backs down, great; if not, well, that's the end. Period. There's no deep philosophy here. That's just what happens when you're dealing with a total idiot.

It's obvious you're scared—you probably have kids or something—but hey, that's life. If it makes you feel better, just sell everything, grab the kids, and run off to Patagonia. Whining on a forum isn't going to change anything.

The end result will definitely be taking those toys away from Putin. It isn't impossible, and it isn't far off either...

Carol Johnson21 said:They aren't lunatics; this is just propaganda manufactured for domestic and international consumption.
Isn't it grotesque that so many Westerners support, or claim to be "neutral" toward, a state threatening them with nuclear annihilation?
If the roles were reversed, how much empathy would Russians show for such threats?

In that light, the wave of Russian emigration into Europe is actually quite concerning to me.

Yesterday, Professor Barić shared some rather intriguing insights during his "Weekly Interview." He also harbors doubts about whether anyone can truly stand up to Vladimir Putin. But the most fascinating point was his discussion regarding "national grief over the collapse of the USSR"—essentially, most Russians haven't quite swallowed the idea of losing territories from the former union. He even labeled Navalny as a nationalist (remember the stance on Crimea?), who is now wisely remaining silent on the matter.

He also noted that the idea that this war benefits Americans is fundamentally flawed. The US was trying to keep Putin at bay while marking China as their primary global rival. With this sudden excursion into Ukraine, the US finds itself facing two fronts simultaneously—something they certainly didn't need.

It isn't true that this war serves the interests of the USA.

He emphasized that the notion of this war benefiting the USA is incorrect.

- Joe Biden primarily wanted to focus on China, which is why he offered Vladimir Putin a "status quo" back in the summer of 2021. They didn't want Russia meddling in what America considers its number one adversary. Now, the US will be forced to fight on two fronts—against Russia and against China—and that comes with a massive price tag, according to Barić.

Unfortunately, I think he's right. It feels like nobody is thinking outside the box anymore; everyone seems disconnected from reality. It's like no one realizes they're being fed this narrative on TV about how the DLNR is at war with Ukraine, or how people in the referendums claim they don't want to be part of the Russian Federation. That could have been an exit strategy, but they aren't playing it that way. There's a certain level of fear here because of what Putin might reach for next. Personally, I'm convinced that if Putin thinks he can get away with it, he'd be ready to drop a nuke on Zaporizhzhia. He doesn't think like we do—and honestly, I suspect he hasn't had a clear picture of the situation for a long time. He's likely been getting bad intel, which explains the mobilization mess. Putin is just following the same path as every other leader who came before him.

Yeah, it’s pretty simple, really: Some people have headed over to Belarus, a close Russian ally that Has ordered its security forces to round up Russian men found fleeing The draft and report them to Russian authorities, according to the AP.