FancyCat

What I'm saying is Russia does not want to be a part of the global order. It wants a new order, or better to say, it wants a old world order back again. The problem is they have nukes, as you have acknowledged. Part of their vision of that old world order is Ukraine is Russian once again. And the Baltics. Finland. Poland. The Balkans. And so on. Russia thinks the West is weak. Russia thinks it can break apart the West and regain her status. Russia got into this mess cause it believed the West was ready to fold. In 2014, the West closed their eyes to what Russia wanted, and figured Russia had moved on from the old world order, and therefore didn't punish Russia when we had the chance. Let me emphasize, in the same way the West ignored what Russia was doing, what it wanted, what Putin has expressed in clear terms regarding Ukraine for far too long till we reached this point, Russia now is going to ignore what the West says. It's going to keep pushing, its going to hold out as long as it can, and it will threaten the nuclear option cause Russia thinks the West will fold. That means if Russia pulls out the nukes, the West needs to do the same. If Russia says Crimea is forever Russian, the West needs for Ukraine to seize it. We cannot fold because what you think Russia wants and what Russia wants do not match. When you say that Russia will blink first, and won't go eye to eye with the West, what I'm saying is our interest needs to be to match Russia at every step. What I'm trying to say, there is no point in coaxing Russia back with Crimea or whatever. Russia will regard it as a sign of weakness.

Agreed, engaging in the same sort of deal making EE alleges France and Germany are doing is the easy way to throw American goodwill out into the trash. Mind you, there's a very good reason why the UK has taken a almost opposite position to France and Germany, largely to do with wedging EE from France and Germany. And indeed, its been long standing policy to be more aggressive with Russia than France and Germany simply to reassure the Eastern flank of NATO. Also, frankly, the West needs to ignore Putin and Russia. Things like hitting the nuke button, or that Russia is on the verge of chaos, or that Russia is gonna collapse. This did not come to pass due purely to Russia being a bastard, had the West been more forceful in 2014, maybe Putin might not have betted the farm in 2022. Russia has time and time again, acted like complete lying scum, deception, with near abandon in Europe assassinating opposition, hacking, damaging Europe and the world via hybrid warfare, etc. This action, the annexation of Ukraine must be placed into context as a huge, huge attack on the West. This idea that we need Russia to be a gas station for the West or in between us and China is stupid as hell, (and it was just as stupid when the head of the German Navy said it out loud and got fired for it) implying Russia just didn't try to destroy NATO and the EU in one go, collapse the international order, and show the U.S as a declining power unable to do anything, anywhere. Now, you have said some variation of this over and over, and up until now, I've been sorta confused about it, tbh, I think i got it now, and frankly its stupid as hell, same stuff as Merkel and cooperation co and discredited as such. Nothing about Russia since the collapse of the USSR has ever indicated a viability in Russia being a gas station, or a puppet? and absolutely not a small dime player to bounce off China, and everything about this attitude expressed is actually a validation of Russian Nationalist worse fears. RU Nat worst nightmares are not collapse of the Federation, it isn't, Russia does not have a fear of the dismemberment of its nation by force, the nuclear triad assures its existence. Its the destruction of Russian superiority and the degeneration of Russia into a puppet state, in both mind and body, that is the worse nightmare for Russia and those nationalists. One, nothing about Putin's rise to power, the maintenance of Russian power since 1991, the use of hybrid warfare, indicates any willingness on Russia's part to enter a "puppet state" willingly. As long as its nuclear weapons are there, Russia has no fear of invasion. Two, the use of hybrid warfare to counter the EU, the threat posed by the EU in Ukraine and not NATO (it has never, ever been NATO) are because the cultural values that the EU brings are direct threats to Russian power, not in body, but in the mind. The nukes will keep Russia safe physically, but the sneaking influence of the EU is much harder to oppose. Three, the reason why we did not expect the full scale invasion of Ukraine has precisely to do with NATO and the EU and our confusion with the goals of Russian hardliners, nationalists. Again, there is no risk to Russia from NATO. What is the risk is the encroachment of EU values with Ukraine turning away from Russia and towards the EU, and the disappearance of the Russian mir, the abandonment of its subject peoples and the turning of Russia from a regional/world-ish power to insignificant backwater. Four, Russia is the superior nation and people, and Ukraine, and its people are supposed to aspire to Russia, be grateful for being part of Russia, and certainly not supposed to wave ****ing EU flags, and liberalize gays and weak values like feminism and blah, blah. The Donbas means nothing, only worth to Russia for its value in forcing the Ukrainians to heel. And Crimea may be worth something to Russia, but letting "poor old Russia" keep a island is not going to smooth stuff over and make them grateful for Western benevolence and be suddenly okay with snatching their slaves and freeing them. The goal has always been the restoration of Russia as a great power and the Russian people as a great people and part of that goal is the subjection of Ukraine and its people. Hell, one should say that the only way for the Russian Empire to exist, to flourish is with Ukraine under its heel first. If you want to spare Russia from collapse, you need to stop supporting Ukraine and let Russia take it over, cause otherwise, it will be the success of Ukraine that drives the Russians over the cliff. There is no point in accommodating Russia cause what Russia wants is opposed to everything the West stands for, in both physical power and mindset. And we only barely made it to this point, cause that bastard Putin figured he was a viper that snuck in and got too greedy and the West got lucky. Trying to turn Russia into a gas station got us to this point.

I think a big reason why we differ, is the risk of Russian collapse, I don't think its likely, and whatever does happen will not be anywhere as bad as the breakup of the Soviet Union. Kamil Galeev, who despite being quite wrong on many things, is a Tatar separatist, and so if he thinks that Russia won't collapse due to ethnic conflicts but more on economic and geographic grounds where political divisions aren't really cracking till much later after economic cracking, I'm quite inclined to see someone who would want the breakup along ethnic lines acknowledge that's not gonna be the main reason why. Any battles for control of Russia have so far taken place so far among the elite, without too much visibility on the general public. A loud breakup or fight for control risks money flows, money that still flows largely. And aside from slow economic collapse paving the way for political breakup, I just don't see how Russia collapses otherwises in a big fashion. States that are near death still take a lot to collapse, and can last a long time.

One thing that has saved in my opinion, the complete destruction of Russian/Soviet equipment vs the West is the way how Ukraine has, despite having less than Russia, been able to use Soviet era equipment in a much more skillful manner in general. Lots of reasons for it, and obviously western equipment has changed a lot of the game, but i think it would be folly to not recognize the Ukrainians and their mindset and culture militarily, socially, and civically vs that of Russia as contributing much if not most of the war success they have seen. Morale, culture, the rhetorical underpinnings of this war and conflict, we are seeing with this conflict very clear benefits of that for a country that was not supposed to succeed in a conventional conflict vs Russia. No offensive to Russia (nah **** Russia, full offensive to them for launching a genocidal war) but I'm going to suggest any economic drag in the Donbas is due largely to the fact that Russia is a mafia state intent only on resource extraction since you can steal money from that the easiest. Russian GDP is vastly under what such a country should be capable of on paper. No surprise that their administration of occupied Donbas, hell their administration of the currently occupied areas of Ukraine is utter trash. Again, majority of those in the Donbas sided with Ukraine, Ukraine was about to crush the separatists had the Russian military not intervened, with how Russia is using the occupied people right now, there is a decent chance there won't be much a base for hostile action against Ukraine anyhow. Manpower in the republics is by all accounts, fully exhausted, they are pulling the sick, too old into the frontlines. I just laid out in a prior response why the nuclear escalation between Ukraine and Russia is much more narrow than the West vs Russia, but again, if Ukraine folds to nuclear escalation, Russia will be able to pull that card again and again. There is no other option for Ukraine except to dare Russia to do so, because Russia has nearly or in some sense, exhausted all conventional escalation steps. By launching the red button option, the full invasion of Ukraine with the goal of ending the state and Ukrainian people, one of the reasons why analysts didn't see this happening was it was absolutely a foolish, all in response, instead of a scenario that many predicted, had Russia simply opted for limited offensives into the Donbas region, most of Western backlash wouldn't have occurred, and Russia could still threaten higher escalatory moves to force Ukraine to fold. Why the peace talks where Zelensky tried to offer some sort of deal, cause the Russians had them on the ropes (and i must point out those were also deescalating steps), the fact that Russia basically refused all of them is also just basically pressing the big red "No more Ukraine" button ten times over! If the West folds to nuclear escalation (which it can't either lest nuclear armed states are legitimized into seizing territory, AND since Russia is threatening it after announcing the impending annexation of the occupied regions of Ukraine, this is also a escalatory response from the prior demands of denazification and neutrality of Ukraine!!! ), Ukraine cannot fold, cause then Ukraine would be offering itself up to nuclear blackmail with a reachable goal of ending Ukraine as a state. I want to note that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan lasted from 2001 to 2021. 20 years!! For crying out loud, the U.S period of active occupation of Iraq from 2001 to 2013 is eight years, the same time period from 2014 when Russia took over Crimea to 2022! And we still went back in 2014 into Iraq till 2021 for ISIS! And the amount of money for both, quick google says its 4-6 trillion dollars, which is 4000 billions at least, the amount spent since the invasion began in February for Ukraine is only about $50 billion. The amount spent on the Afghani military by the U.S, therefore omitting U.S costs of its actual forces, from 2001 to 2021 was $73 billion according to info on this link. Again, that isn't including reconstruction, or the cost of deploying U.S forces. The $50 billion to Ukraine includes both military and non-military aid and financing. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you on the ability of the West or the U.S to stay the course in Ukraine. Let us not forget the psychological toll (toll isnt the right word, too harsh in my opinion but I'll call it that for now) that deploying American troops incurred on the desire of the American people to end the U.S involvement in both those conflicts. By comparison, Ukraine is a freaking children's book. With bipartisan agreement mind you. A year supporting Ukraine with no boots on the ground is gonna break the will of the American people, big doubt. hell, 2021, decent chance had we stayed in Afghanistan, the American people would right now present day probably give less a damn about Afghanistan and the continuing investment in it than had we left.

Europe is much more dependent on Russia than the U.S, i mean, the U.S benefits from being able to export LNG to Europe for example. So it's understandable for Germany and France to be more cautious when looking at a stalemate in Ukraine, but in the same vein, Ukraine has absolutely illustrated the ability to overtake Russia, and as seen in the recent statements of Macron and Scholz, Putin has been steadily slamming their fingers with the door and illustrating that for all the rhetoric and prior explanations, Russian goals for Ukraine is just purely to turn the current European and international order to dust. In the more aggressive minded members of NATO sitting on their hands and letting Russia show its cards, Russia is looking worse and worse, and Ukraine looking more and more right, and I think reluctance is fading away. There is something to be said for ensuring Russia does not freak out. I think Germany and France will adopt more cautious stances still, like the U.S with long range missiles, purely to keep Russia thinking it has a chance still. On one hand, its very painful for Ukraine, on the other, the longer Putin and co can sit in denial that they lost, if they really are screwed in to a mindset of nuclear chicken if they don't get their way in Ukraine, the longer before they start throwing the chicken around, the better for Ukraine and the West. The day may come where the West may break resolve, the longer Ukraine gets aid, the more chances it can simply ignore Western requests and push forward and the calculus for Ukraine vs Russia is a lot different than the West vs Russia. Russia can claim escalation dominance against the West. It cannot claim so vs Ukraine as any folding on Ukraine's side means the destruction of their state. (Russia can claim to be ready to nuke Ukraine as much as it wants, the moment Ukraine folds, Russia can forever pursue nuclear escalation to threaten Ukraine into submission, and after pulling a gun right to Ukraine's head in February, Ukraine really can't expect anything less than that)

Turkey has always been a country playing both sides (or even 3 sides), nothing wrong with that, but I think there's a lot to be said for a future visualization of U.S military transport planes flying out of Crimea to Georgia and Armenia than say from Romania across the span of the Black Sea. Some food for thought for the Armenia-Azerbaijan situation. I'm not saying Azerbaijan needs to not have internationally recognized borders fully restored, but it would be quite nice if parity between the Armenia and Azerbaijan could be restored in such a manner that violations of the recognized international borders of each country would be more trouble than they are presently for both sides. Crimea would be very important for that I think.

Just to elaborate some more, a Ukraine restored to the full 1991 borders, is much more economically stronger than 2014. One, the industrial nexuses in the Donbas are completely unlocked, and again, whatever the damage done to it, we have plenty of examples of devastated regions being restored, and of course, the Marshall Plan is the clear argument for it being possible. Two, the Black Sea offshore Natural Gas and Oil production is locked off now and for the foreseeable future if Crimea is retained by Russia. Ukraine takes it, and Europe can happily invest and utilize it, the Donbas energy production as well. Furthermore, the loss of Sevastopol as a seaport, and military base will hamstring any future Russian projection of power. Plus, let's be clear, a Ukraine in NATO with Crimea, is much more useful to NATO and the West than Ukraine with Crimea still in Russian hands. There is tons of incentive for Ukraine to go all the way, but I think the West is actually more than fine with Ukraine going all the way, for all the reasons i laid out, it would be the most substantial victory for Western influence since....i suppose the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe? Probably greater than that tbh. The worry has always been a stalemate, where Europe cannot normalize relations with Russia and Ukraine still a basketcase. Ukraine achieving the full restoration of her 1991 borders would be devastating for opponents of the West and a absolutely clear signal that the West remains on top. Also, as seen in recent U.S moves towards Armenia, if NATO (minus Turkey) had Crimea, and Ukraine in NATO....well, it would be a lot more easier for U.S projection of power into the Caucasus no? Oh sure, the U.S could use Romania or such but I think Ukraine would be absolutely fine with that arrangement in Crimea i think.

Ukrainians approve of Zelensky, Ukrainians also have a knack for being very loud when **** does not go their way (They will turn on him instantly if he looks like he will give up any part of Ukraine in a peace deal). There isn't a scenario in the near future where Ukraine has the military power to retake all her lands past 2014 and just gives it away. Yeah the Donbas is ruined, but so was Germany past 1945 and she was up and running within 20 years. So the economic argument for ceding away the Donbas, or Crimea is not effective, those lands can be restored (and the people who fled those regions can return). I highly doubt we will see active resistance movements in the Donbas, it looks like the Russians have basically pulled every man within fighting age and have exhausted the manpower in the pre-invasion region of the Donbas, anyone not dead, a POW or fled to Russia, is gonna be not a lot. Polling pre-2014 showed majorities for staying with Ukraine in most of the Donbas. Ukraine has always held the position that the separatist states are the creation of Russia, there will not be any sort of legitimation of their status, there will most likely be no special status for the Donbas like Crimea had pre-2014 in Ukraine. It is important to note that only Russian intervention into the Donbas saved it from being crushed by Ukraine in 2014-15. Aside from seizing the regional capitals, most of the two oblasts were held by Ukraine. Those puppet states were barely viable then, a Ukraine with the ability to push Russia back has the ability to retake all the Donbas and controlling the population fine. (even without the bloodletting Russia has caused using them as cannon fodder) Crimea, i think it would be doubtful even for it to get autonomy status, at least without more safeguards in the Constitution. Crimea will be retaken by Ukraine, militarized as appropriately as Ukraine feels like it, with no regard for Russia. Crimea held by Russia has shown itself to be a sword at Ukraine's neck, able to at will cut off Ukrainian sea access and threaten Southern Ukraine. The Kerch bridge will be destroyed, and ships will flow to and from Odessa without the worry of Russian blockades ever again with Crimea in rightful hands. The economic argument for retaking the Crimea, including offshore oil and gas speaks for itself in addition to keeping the sealanes open. After the bull**** of the full scale invasion, offers of "neutral and open" are DOA. Ukraine wants to join the EU and NATO, but is under no illusions over her own defense, offering to internationally monitor Crimea or the Donbas without Ukraine being on site, will be met with the cynicism unleashed by a Russia that literally began the war with the UN Security Council making useless *** statements calling for dialogue. As for carrots, no point for carrots, Crimea and the Donbas pre-2022, are probably more easier to take now than any point pre-Russian intervention. I already laid out the arguments for why it will be retaken.

Why is it still a SMO? How can Russia give figures where half the UKR military has been wiped for only 6k on the Russian side and then ask for partial mobilization yet still frame it as a limited military operation? So many holes. Every time I hear of forced conscription my blood boils, is there no end to Russian warcrimes? So much notice and attention given to poor Russians who are trying to flee mobilization while in Ukraine, they snatch whoever they can to be cannon fodder, Ukrainian vs Ukrainian. Where is the attention for them? Truly, **** Russia.

ChrisO thread, which lends my thinking that any opportunity to push offensive action before the Russian military can regenerate combat capability is vital in my opinion, where possible to do so by the ZSU in order to weaken Russian regeneration.

Mark Hertling has a thread, before commanding US Army, Europe, he was commander over all basic and advanced soldier training for the Army so I'm quite inclined to believe his words on Russian training. Thread shows that RU leadership and training is woeful even in normal circumstances.

Ukraine has TDF to counter low level Russian pushes along the border. If Russia were to throw the lid off, Ukraine I think will be capable of responding well enough. From Vox, a Western scholar queried his academic colleagues in Russia, and, well...Ukraine needs to punch Russia some more, to get the idea that their ability to win the war is dead. 3 arguments, China will help them, the West is weak, and technology will not override Russian men. https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/20/23362290/russia-ukraine-china-technology-west-war

Russia was shoving volunteers into Ukraine with only 2 weeks training in some instances. Maybe Russia improves, reforms but nothing so far indicates that. Russia should have mobilized way earlier, personnel and equipment has been spent that cannot be effectively replaced in a short time period. (Some not even in a long time period) One, Ukraine cannot pull off the seizure of Kherson before Winter or any other offensive during Winter, and Russia can use the downtime to train. Two, the more likely option, Ukraine keeps pushing, Russia is forced to do the same as it did with the contract soldiers earlier and deploy them with only two weeks training to shore up the lines. Absolute meat grinder will occur, and likely not to Russia's benefit.

Well certainly this time they should rightly be purged. (Not killed but if you betray your country again, you can't expect to keep your position!). Betray once, I suppose but again? Goddamn that's some treachery. Also, aren't there a few pro-Russians who remained loyal to Ukraine? Are there any who supported Russia in 2014 but now now in 2022 stayed loyal to Ukraine?

Ehh maybe if the mobilization occurred at the start, sure, but it's happening after the defeat at Kharkiv, after months of the best of the Russian military being ground down to dust. The VDV, 1st Tank Guards Army, are dust. You don't think the news of people refusing contracts or trying to get out does not defuse in the age of the internet? They were getting only half enlistment goals with incentives.

Im sure every Russian soldier in Ukraine getting HIMARed is enjoying hearing this.

NATO blah blah. Ignore the fact we moved everything to Ukraine including air defense and troops from the Western Military District and Moscow and St. Petersburg. Zelensky made a line about how Ukraine needed to keep their nukes or such such. God I hope he dies soon. (Putin) **** this man. God willing we get to see within a month a Leopard 1 blow a T-72 turret skyhigh. I will repeat again, accommodating Western states who want to give Putin climbdowns works beacuse Putin for whatever idiotic, delusional reason is intent on swallowing and choking to death on Ukraine, ensuring those Western states who wish to turn Ukraine into a NATO fortress the escalation response is united as everyone must conclude Putin is just plain stubborn.

Partial mobilization. Ongoing translation of his speech.

Wartranslated said it was just a call to prayer, unless we get more info that it's a anti-war protest, I'm not sure the tweets are to be trusted.

Wasn't Zelensky considered in the West, the more moderate of the two candidates in regards to the conflict? Russian slander usually made him either a puppet that would like to make peace but is denied by nationalists and the West.

Isn't it that the vast majority of Ukrainians are bilingual?

Where are these hardliners? Didn't the far right Ukrainian nationalists get a very small percentages in the last elections?

The Russian delegation to the UN is landing now in NYC, maybe just like the speech where he declared war and missiles began falling on Ukraine while the UN security council was meeting, they are timing it to ensure that once again they show their disdain for the UN.

No one wants to die in a nuclear war, and using a nuke raises that option extremely high that you will die, and certainly raises it high for those ordering or carrying out those orders to launch a nuke, and all indications point to this SMO in Ukraine being quite low stakes. Sure, maybe the SMO fails and Putin is ordered to be retired. But Putin's retirement is not Russia's retirement. The USSR may have been afraid of being nuked by the West, but the removal of Russian Air Defense units from St. Petersburg and near Finland, not to mention the draining of military assets facing the West for the SMO indicates Moscow has no fear of Western escalation over Ukraine turning into a active conflict between Russia and the West.

It is very important to note, that the West has been attempting to give Russia escalatory first response. If Russia truly annexes Ukrainian territory in a desperate bid to generate domestic and international support for causing a stalemate or freezing the war, I expect the West to ramp up its support of Ukraine, not decrease it. That way, instead of having to defend against Russian accusations of ramping up the crisis, the West can express that at every point, Russia was given a chance to walk away, and instead has doubled down. A reminder, Putin's words at the beginning of the invasion were not to annex Ukrainian territory.