Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[The Fun Factory]

This should only end when Ukraine has all of its legally defined border back, including the illegally annexed Crimea.  That was was agreed on after the collapse of the USSR and that is why Ukraine decommissioned its nuclear weapons, believing that Russia would respect its borders. Didn't exactly go to plan.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

This should only end when Ukraine has all of its legally defined border back, including the illegally annexed Crimea.  That was was agreed on after the collapse of the USSR and that is why Ukraine decommissioned its nuclear weapons, believing that Russia would respect its borders. Didn't exactly go to plan.

A minor point, but Ukraine didn't have nuclear weapons.

It had Russian nukes that were left behind on its territory that they couldn't do anything with. At most they were a makeweight in any international negotiations they found themselves in in their early independence. They weren't useful to them otherwise.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, villakram said:

These proposals present a fundamental absence of understanding of the Russian position.

What, (or how) do you perceive the Russian position to be?

From my perspective the Russian perspective is completely different now to what it was before they invaded. Before they invaded it was a case of "Invade, quickly depose the Ukraine government and replace it with Russian stooges, the West won't do anything, Ukraine is weak and can't fight us. We'll overwhelm them"

But now, it's "We failed to do what we set out to do, we are losing an enormous amount of soldiers and equipment, we haven't achieved even a reduced set of objectives around the East of Ukraine and are getting pushed back. Meanwhile we're also losing the reputation we had around our hardware and professionalism and are being embarrassed in terms of loses of Flagships, Bridges and there's a lot of discontent amongst both hardliners and the younger part of Russian society. What the hell can we do to get out of this intact?"

I also think that neither side can win, they can only both lose. Russia has already lost so much and Ukraine likewise.

Until Putin goes, I guess it'll just churn on with more death and destruction. But if he's replaced by a hardliner, then there's still the same problems.

[sidcow]

45 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not a chance of Ukraine agreeing to that. They need RUssia's footprint in the Black Sea to be as small as possible. Getting Sevastopol back is crucial to that

Just my idea for an off ramp for Putin.

If he's not given one the war will jus go on till:

1) The west stops supporting Ukraine and Russia win

2) Putin dies or is usurped

3) Ukraine actually win and push Russia back to pre 2014 borders.  That's going to be a real long haul and will rely on years of support from The West

4) Russia nukes the world.

2) would be the absolutely ideal result and 4) the absolutely to be avoided result. 

Not one want's 1) and 3) (along with 2 really) are going to take years and be eye wateringly expensive.

I don't really know what else can be offered to Putin to make him go away.  Every war ends with some kind of mutually agreeable settlement, what else can be offered?

I guess we might get to a place where Ukraine can carry on by itself of the Russian military is degraded enough but that's still pretty bleak for Ukraine.

[Genie]

Ukraine should invade Russia or commit to a campaign of terrorist style attacks… then they can agree to stop doing it in exchange for Russia leaving Ukraine.

 

[LondonLax]

The problem with Crimea is that it requires the ‘owner’ to also have control of its only water supply in Kherson. 

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The problem with Crimea is that it requires the ‘owner’ to also have control of its only water supply in Kherson. 

Its not its only water supply. 85% of the canal's water supplies agriculture and industry. The population of Crimea manged to get drinking water between 2014 and March 2022 when the canal was blocked

[magnkarl]

57 minutes ago, Genie said:

Ukraine should invade Russia or commit to a campaign of terrorist style attacks… then they can agree to stop doing it in exchange for Russia leaving Ukraine.

 

This. The amount of appeasing thoughts that are creeping back in is scary. Have people forgotten Butcha, Mariupol and Irpin already?

No, the aggressor shouldn’t be given diddly squat here unless that is what the Ukrainians want.

[LondonLax]

50 minutes ago, bickster said:

Its not its only water supply. 85% of the canal's water supplies agriculture and industry. The population of Crimea manged to get drinking water between 2014 and March 2022 when the canal was blocked

Yeah they had to drive it in one tanker load at a time over the Kerch bridge which is not a long term solution, hence the rush to capture and control the canal. 

[HolteExile]

How do you negotiate with a despotic criminal regime who literally want to wipe you from the map. 

You can't if you're Ukraine in this moment. 

If Russia is seen to suffer and it bites hard enough to force regime change - and ipso facto - they gain a leader living in 2022 and not 1822, there is a chance of a normalisation of relations. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by HolteExile

[villa89]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The problem with Crimea is that it requires the ‘owner’ to also have control of its only water supply in Kherson. 

One the main reasons for Russia's invasion in the first place. Ukraine cut off a lot of the water supply and was basically "desertifying" Crimea.

[villa89]

36 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

How do you negotiate with a despotic criminal regime who literally want to wipe you from the map. 

You can't if you're Ukraine in this moment. 

If your allies tell you to then you have no choice. Ukraine can't fight this war alone. 

[Genie]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

This. The amount of appeasing thoughts that are creeping back in is scary. Have people forgotten Butcha, Mariupol and Irpin already?

No, the aggressor shouldn’t be given diddly squat here unless that is what the Ukrainians want.

Obviously my post was a bit tongue in cheek but it’s just the point that as Ukraine isn’t really hitting Russia then there isn’t an upside to Russia exiting Ukraine.

Apart from offering to stop blowing up young Russians (which Putin clearly isn’t too fussed about) what could Ukraine offer in return for Russia withdrawing?

[villakram]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

What, (or how) do you perceive the Russian position to be?

From my perspective the Russian perspective is completely different now to what it was before they invaded. Before they invaded it was a case of "Invade, quickly depose the Ukraine government and replace it with Russian stooges, the West won't do anything, Ukraine is weak and can't fight us. We'll overwhelm them"

But now, it's "We failed to do what we set out to do, we are losing an enormous amount of soldiers and equipment, we haven't achieved even a reduced set of objectives around the East of Ukraine and are getting pushed back. Meanwhile we're also losing the reputation we had around our hardware and professionalism and are being embarrassed in terms of loses of Flagships, Bridges and there's a lot of discontent amongst both hardliners and the younger part of Russian society. What the hell can we do to get out of this intact?"

I also think that neither side can win, they can only both lose. Russia has already lost so much and Ukraine likewise.

Until Putin goes, I guess it'll just churn on with more death and destruction. But if he's replaced by a hardliner, then there's still the same problems.

Minsk II is the outline. 

Ukraine never in NATO is the redline. 

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, villakram said:

Ukraine never in NATO is the redline. 

Ukraine will be in NATO, it's the only real way to prevent this happening all over again.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Ukraine will be in NATO, it's the only real way to prevent this happening all over again.

There are ways to resolve this issue that don't require that. Too many absolutes in the air right now for that unfortunately.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, villakram said:

There are ways to resolve this issue that don't require that. Too many absolutes in the air right now for that unfortunately.

There aren't. Russia can't be trusted. Ukraine needs to be under the NATO nuclear umbrella to prevent Russia invading again

[villa89]

19 minutes ago, bickster said:

Ukraine needs to be under the NATO nuclear umbrella to prevent Russia invading again

To get into NATO they will probably need to give up Crimea and a lot of eastern Ukraine. 

Pretty harrowing documentary on Mariupol on BBC at the moment showing the horror of war. Its really disagraceful that humanity can split the atom and put a man on the moon but we still blow the s**t out of each other at the direction of "leaders" who think they are great men but are actually deluded historical embarrassments. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by villa89

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, villa89 said:

To get into NATO they will probably need to give up Crimea and a lot of eastern Ukraine. 

I very much doubt Ukrainians themselves will allow that at this stage

[ender4]

26 minutes ago, villa89 said:

 Its really disagraceful that humanity can split the atom and put a man on the moon but we still blow the s**t out of each other at the direction of "leaders" who think they are great men but are actually deluded historical embarrassments. 

Isn’t there a philosophical argument that they are sides of the same coin?

War drives invention.  

Human greed and hunger for power drives technical innovation and therefore advancement of humans.