FancyCat

The "separatists" were about to be defeated in 2014, at which point Russia decided to throw off the excuse of the "little green men" and just sent in regular Russian forces to reinforce and save the separatists and freeze the conflict. Igor Girkin is a FSB agent and Minister of Defense for the DPR! far from clear? I'm not sure what more clearness there could be that the separatists were made up of significant numbers of Russian military and security personnel, not before even getting into the actual deployment of Russian forces to keep the border open and separatist supply routes intact preventing the whole thing from ending in 2014.

The Hungarian crack has been there, its irrelevant, Italy, the front runner for their election i believe has stated she will keep sanctions going.

How much do you want to bet that the quota numbers came in from Moscow and the expectation was they get fulfilled or else?

I don't think there's anything wrong with suspension of normality during war and obviously there will be a period of reintegration. EU influence on Ukraine will keep Ukraine from getting too anti-democratic or repressive, and Ukraine's civil society looks to be holding up well. We have no idea the will of the population in the pre-invasion regions now. I'm not sure how uncertainty about reintegration equals a scenario where the West needs to fret about Ukraine retaking all her territory back. My only thoughts about reintegration stem from American history. Military occupation and administration of the southern states, lasted 12 years and in my opinion should have lasted way longer and been harsher. But comparing reintegrations like that has no value and offers little in the way of lessons.

Correct me if mistaken, the constitution of Ukraine does not allow for secession. While I don't know how reintegration will occur, I'm not sure why Ukraine needs to suppress democracy or such off the top of my head since you can't secede.

This is a war of aggression. This is a war where Russia sought to annex Ukrainian territory in violation of international law (one could argue all of Ukraine). This is a war where Russia in order to facilitate the seizure of Ukrainian territory has initiated genocidal actions against the Ukrainian people. There is nothing free or fair about a referendum as the bodies of those who would have quite possibly voted for Ukraine are being uncovered, with millions displaced from ruined war-torn regions.

The problem is who lives there in 2014 and now are quite different. Lots of internal movements of people to unoccupied Ukraine. Lots of Russians who moved in. The right of return is a accepted principle of international law. Ukraine's internally displaced from the Donbas and Crimea must be allowed to return and the return of property as well to Ukraine. There is a important part of recognition of Russian crimes against humanity in Ukraine (including genocide), that informs the context of whether actions like setting up elections to decide a region being Russian vs Ukrainian is just. I say just as we have ample evidence of policies of forced relocation and deportation of Ukrainian citizens from Ukraine with seizure of passports and with no monitoring by the UN or ICRC, cleansing of pro-Ukrainian populations in occupied regions, Russification, etc. https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15023.doc.htm Russia's actions in Ukraine mean it has lost the privilege of acting like it can earnestly ask to give rights to the people of Ukraine to choose to join Russia.

Actually you bring up something important that needs to be recognized as to why Ukraine will never concede the land. Never. Ever. Maybe some temporary ceasefire. Never any formal swap or recognition or a payoff for giving it up. That is because one of the central tenets of the separatism in the Donbas and Crimea centers on Ukrainian oppression of Russian speakers. Mind you. Not ethnic Russians tho certainly a important tenet as well. Russian speakers. Goddamn most of the country is bilingual. Vast populations of "oppressed Russian speakers" were given as reasons for the invasions past the Donbas region, like Kharkiv. The puppet republics were seen as not able to be annexed by Russia cause Russia wanted levers into Ukraine. Sadly, as seen with their rhetoric claiming all of Ukraine at the beginning of the invasion and midpoint, annexation of the Donbas into Russia isn't the end of the matter. As absolutely seen in these referendums in every semi-occupied oblast, Russia can and has moved the goalposts at will, with no regard for the truth, only as much as to provide a veneer of justification for their actions. That means in the future, should a Russia that formalized a annexation of the DPR and LNR ever want to annex Kharkiv for example, it can pull the oppression of Russian-language speakers card out, and off we go. So no, Ukraine giving up Crimea and the Donbas won't end Russian bull****. Far from it, it might well legitimatize future bull****. Certainly more so than Ukraine's current stance which is this is all Russian controlled and manned and bull**** and therefore, Ukraine kicking in Russia in the teeth is perfectly justified.

Mind you, there is a much longer list of reasons not to attack and seize Belgorod then simply risk of escalation. Rhetorically, Belgorod is actually useless. Oh sure it's a military hub that bombards Kharkiv daily. But the Ukrainian people do not need Belgorod conquered and not even need the bombardment of Kharkiv to end (tho I'm sure lessening it is nice and that has occurred via targeted action that is not a precursor for invasion) and Zelensky is not going to suffer politically for failing to invade Belgorod. (A great contrast is of course the return of Ukrainian POWs) In that sense, while yes it is a valid target, there is no political need, and not really military need and lots of military negatives and political negatives before we even reach the escalation negativity factor as something for the General Staff of Ukraine to consider. And obviously Russia understands this as well. Russia has always understood that Ukraine claims the return of the Donbas and Crimea. It shouldn't be understated that we have a very long list of reasons for Russia to claim Crimea is politically poison for returning to Ukraine and one of the most important is because the international order basically makes Crimea actually a much, much more valid target than Belgorod. Way more valid. Belgorod would actually raise eyebrows worldwide, Crimea would not, or a much less raising of the eyebrows worldwide to be fair. Russia must employ this "red line" precisely because Crimea is a valid target. The problem is they spent a lot of time cheapening their rhetoric, and the basis for this invasion itself has damaged Russia's red lines. Ukraine is a sword held by NATO at Russia's neck, except the world can see Russia isn't concerned with NATO at all. (You don't move military hardware away from borders that are supposedly ready to invade you) Even the basis for Ukraine's "Nazi" rhetoric domestically and internationally just got damaged, the leadership of the Azov, terrorists and war criminals who tortured the Donbas, traded over to Ukraine without a trial even. Attempting to cast the recently occupied regions of Ukriane as eternally Russia damages Russian claims to Crimea severely as well. Oh sure, no state is immune to domestic concerns and it's right to say that considerations for escalation must account for domestic instability as well as international support. But even here Russia falls flat on its face. The initial invasion force, understood to be small for the complete occupation of Ukraine, turns out Russia was just a idiot and figured Ukraine for a bunch of chumps. Instead of opting for measures to indicate the severity of the threat to the Russian state and people and worldwide, it spent months hiding behind the SMO and still does today. By extension the problems we see in the Russian military in Ukraine, the reaction to mobilization, indicate not a whole lot of bottom up eagerness to protect the Donbas or Crimea. At least not to the death. The fact that Russia spent years rhetorically hyping up Ukraine as the enemy and yet the Russian military, aside from all it's other problems, very much shows a problem stemming from lack of faith and belief in the stated goals of the SMO. Maybe elite factions threaten Putin if he does not pursue the defense of Crimea. Certainly valid. But ya, to sum it up, Russian rhetoric around Ukraine just straight up is lies and BS all the way down. Whether Crimea itself is a red line is clouded by the fact they seem to say everything is a red line. Ukraine was a red line. (Not even saying nuclear red lines, mind you, just red lines in general)

Wouldn't be much brinkmanship if the U.S wouldn't square up. I remember prepping myself for a argument and a essential part of it was the expression of unreasonableness as part of achieving my goal. Even tho I understood it was unreasonable on some moral level, my goal which I pursued required it and which I accepted what I needed to do. Luckily we got thru the cold war with escalation handbooks and Biden has shown enough recognition of the need to be cautious that I'm not worried about the U.S side and end of day, this exercise in gaming out what the end result of this conflict is, is as you said, missing the essentials the people in charge of us have. Fingers crossed we see the light past the tunnel.

Props to the person on this thread who brought up World War 2 and Japanese demise and how it really boiled down to at what point who blinks first? U.S conditions were unconditional surrender, there were hardliners in Japan intent on driving the Japanese people to their deaths, civilians or not be damned. There were those who argued in order to preserve Japan (or the Emperor), Japan needed to secure one condition before being able to surrender and it was possible to get that condition. And of course on the Allied side, the expression of unconditional surrender was envisioned as essential to breaking the power of Axis states to return to wage war in the future but that entails the dismantling of the enemy state and tho possible, would it be worth, something that needed to be decided and held to by all major Allied partners. Nukes have changed much of the game but the basics are the same tho the goals aren't unconditional surrender per say. Guess I classify as a hardliner.

Bad thing about brinkmanship of course is it is actually beneficial to seem irrational. Whether Putin is irrational or not is almost not a big deal, if Putin thinks looking irrational is needed, then so be it. These red lines where it is asserted that the territory of Russia will be guarded with nuclear fire is diluted with the reality that Ukraine can't very well be afraid of the red line, as their own existence is now tied to pushing these red lines and proving them fake. As a aside I find it interesting, the need to remove emotion in order to look at a situation objectively. Can that be possible when brinkmanship requires such levels of emotional work?

Still mulling over the Azov exchange, years and years of them being marked as war criminals, and they get handed over, top commanders and foreign mercenaries to boot. Gonna suggest that the partial mobilization, may have been partly due to or scheduled to ensure that no one pays hopefully too much attention to the Azov escaping Russian justice. I recall a bit ago, where Ukraine had stated if the Azov defenders were tried and executed, there would be no negotiations. Obviously since then, we have had more important red lines appear, including the referendums, someone else had stated this was a signal Putin is open to talks, decent chance that this is also one of the preconditions for talks by Ukraine. The referendums, can be held on hold whenever as needed as leverage by Russia. Killing the commanders of Azov, not really a way to turn the clock on their deaths. Maybe there is a chance for Ukraine and Russian peace after all sooner than later. Now, in a scenario like this, while I doubt Ukraine won’t settle for anything less than February borders as ceasefire line, maybe Russia gets to pull out of Kherson in good order. Perhaps Zelensky has enough leeway to let them escape thanks to this prisoner exchange. Of course, maybe it just comes down to Putin wanting Medvedchuk back for some strange reason. And some generals bagged during Izyum.

Very long thread, aircraft hardened bunkers require multiple missiles to take out each bunker, Russia seems very reluctant to invest the number of missiles needed to take out the ZSU. Their missile stockpile and/or ability to restock it is not enough to make eliminating the ZSU worth it. Limited ISR and C4ISR limit the ability for strikes. Not only does it probably have a majority of aircraft still operational, several major air bases still operate despite limited attacks on them. Unclear how General Hecker is defining the 80% but it could be true if all manned helo and aircraft were included in the figure.

thanks for the correction. well, well.

I'm mulling over the prisoner swap and what the hell Putin is thinking, obviously the nationalists are mad, there is a list of how was given, but i do wonder if its possible for it to be a lie, and some high value officials or officers were captured in that list of 55 Russians. Medvedchuk, maybe he softened up on him or wanted him to sweat a little before rescuing him, or he's falling out a window in a bit. I saw a justification cope going around where the five high-profile ones commanders, they are opposed to Zelensky and will cause unrest in Ukraine as a result thanks to being free. I am unsure how they do it interned in Turkey but computers work i suppose. I wonder if this is another one of those shots across the bow of the RU Nats, you get your mobilization but I'm still in charge.

Most likely. I gave my assessment, now all we can do is wait for the passage of time.

Why Russia has the world over a barrel, at the end of the day, its a global market, Russia ceasing export to anyone raises the price of the remaining fuel as bidders fight for lower supply. LNG supply is also harder to move, most go via pipelines. Fun part is Russia is selling LNG to China who resells it back to Europe, taking advantage of the higher prices vs whatever concessions it gets from Russia.

Nothing to lie about, I'm just pointing out the durability of the West is much higher than we think, the ability of our populations to pinhole issues is very useful, the return on investment is quite good, and the energy realignment had to happen anyway, and who said 10 years and a nuclear war? I'm just pointing out a year of war where the U.S nor NATO isn't putting boots on the ground or suffering any deaths, while Ukraine is shouldering the dead is actually a good deal (as morbid as it sounds), and if Ukraine wants to secure the security of their sealanes without relying wholly on the West in the future, it might well be a good idea to spend some time taking back Crimea and for the West to give the thumbs up and a pat on the back to see how it goes. As for the Suwałki Gap, I'm just pointing out that was a very real scenario with all sorts of repercussions and scenarios for NATO to figure out, and last time I checked it has always been the position of NATO that every member will defend the other, and unlike CSTO, it has teeth. Wouldn't it be fair to say those plans envisioned a much more longer war with such high costs and loss of life?

Maybe Ukraine gave Medvedchuk for free considering how Putin responded to the last offer.

the vote was 368-57, hardly a issue. Good point made by Kherson Cat. I can't recall even hearing of specific Russians being returned except like one or two cases of corruption.

pre-invasion, it was all the rage, a Russian mechanized spearhead slicing thru the Suwałki Gap and allowing the occupation of the Baltic states with Russia daring the rest of NATO to grind itself down for the little Baltics. I seriously question your expertise and judgment on NATO if this is what you got you all worried about about, one year of paying some bills for Ukraine to shed its blood and ensure the safety of NATO for....oh, lets say 30 years?

I understand your viewpoint but I think it needs to be emphasized that this is already very dark and I'm just not sure if your understanding it, but tbf your in good company, it might be questioned if the governments of France, Germany, etc don't either. Millions of Ukrainian citizens are under occupation. For example, Finland has a population of 5 million. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, about 6 million. In the LPR and DPR, its about 3-4 million, Crimea, 2.5 million, add in the seized areas since February. Maybe 5 million at least? We have 5 million Ukrainians displaced across Europe. When you imply that the LPR, DPR, Crimea should be let go, you have just broken NATO. You have just signaled the abandonment of the Baltics and Finland. Yes, yes, Ukraine is not in NATO. Yes, yes, NATO would mop up Russia. Right now tho, the fight between NATO and Russia is in Ukraine, acting like the French and British letting the Poles fight without a offensive in the West is not the way to go down history. You don't strengthen NATO unity if you tell the Baltics they don't matter, anymore than France or Germany did earlier this year. Russia, as you have pointed out asking if it's worth it to flip the nuclear switches for the Donbas and Crimea, I'm going to ask you if the Baltics and Finland are worth flipping the nuclear switches and staring down Putin. Either we stop Russia right now in Ukraine, or one day down the line, we will suffer thru this again. And you can bring up how Russia is condemned to a decade or more of economic destruction, it's been 31 years since the USSR fell, 30 years is not a lot time away in the future.

Looks like Izyum bagged a few people Russia wants back.