Ukraine war - which side is winning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin has suffered a massive geopolitical defeat.

NATO is expanding even further and, with Finland, will share a very long border with Russia; Ukraine is an EU member state candidate; and, most damningly, Russia has been exposed as a weak military power. Whatever land Putin takes in the near future cannot be held by Russia. Finally, Russia already had demographic problems: now it has lost thousands in this war, thousands have left the country thereby crippling its economic future, and people are not going to be having babies in these conditions.

Clearly, invading was a very bad idea, and a criminal one, but most of what you're saying is talking points with no basis in fact.

Ask Turkey how awesome it is to be an EU candidate.

Russia doesn't have to be the strongest army in the world, it just has to be stronger than its adversary. In this context, "Russia is a weak military power" and "Ukraine needs kazillions billions of dollars in military aid to fight Russia" statements cannot both be true.

In that same vein, Russia's demographics may not be awesome but they are definitely better than Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost millions as refugees, and it's an open secret that not all of them left under duress; some have simply opted to live in Europe once this option has become available, which means they may not be keen to return once the war ends.

With regard to holding territory, Russia has been holding and metabolizing Crimea with no special problems, and it looks poised to hold on to it forever. It may or may not metabolize parts of Donbass that are populated largely by ethnic Russians who were decidedly NOT supportive of the Maidan coup and felt marginalized by the current Ukrainian government. If Russia captures and holds the Black Sea coastal areas, that will be the end of Ukraine's economy. Which is why it is critical that the parties sit down to talk now, because things aren't looking up, and typically, whenever the parties sit down to negotiate, the state of things at the time will be their starting point.

Pp here. You’ve got too narrow an aperture and recommend you consider more than Ukraine. I’m talking geopolitical defeat. Everything I cited is factual. Russia’s adversary is the United States and NATO and I hope you’ll agree we are considerably stronger and more competent. And, of course, China will have taken note. Big undefended border there. So, Russia’s future is bleak.

The US decided to see Russia as an adversary for its own internal political aims. And now it is using Ukraine as a bullet stopper in the same game. But I'm sure Ukrainians are super pleased to become casualties in the conflict you decided the US and NATO simply had to have with Russia.

Don’t be silly. Russia decided to invade Ukraine and consider NATO and the United States as enemies. Russia’s choice. But it was a poor choice and now its weakness and incompetence has been exposed. Putin has no one to blame but himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin has suffered a massive geopolitical defeat.

NATO is expanding even further and, with Finland, will share a very long border with Russia; Ukraine is an EU member state candidate; and, most damningly, Russia has been exposed as a weak military power. Whatever land Putin takes in the near future cannot be held by Russia. Finally, Russia already had demographic problems: now it has lost thousands in this war, thousands have left the country thereby crippling its economic future, and people are not going to be having babies in these conditions.

Clearly, invading was a very bad idea, and a criminal one, but most of what you're saying is talking points with no basis in fact.

Ask Turkey how awesome it is to be an EU candidate.

Russia doesn't have to be the strongest army in the world, it just has to be stronger than its adversary. In this context, "Russia is a weak military power" and "Ukraine needs kazillions billions of dollars in military aid to fight Russia" statements cannot both be true.

In that same vein, Russia's demographics may not be awesome but they are definitely better than Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost millions as refugees, and it's an open secret that not all of them left under duress; some have simply opted to live in Europe once this option has become available, which means they may not be keen to return once the war ends.

With regard to holding territory, Russia has been holding and metabolizing Crimea with no special problems, and it looks poised to hold on to it forever. It may or may not metabolize parts of Donbass that are populated largely by ethnic Russians who were decidedly NOT supportive of the Maidan coup and felt marginalized by the current Ukrainian government. If Russia captures and holds the Black Sea coastal areas, that will be the end of Ukraine's economy. Which is why it is critical that the parties sit down to talk now, because things aren't looking up, and typically, whenever the parties sit down to negotiate, the state of things at the time will be their starting point.

Ok I’m Putin, play this out. What can you offer me that is better than me taking the entire north Black Sea ports, all of the wheat and energy resources in eastern Ukraine and reduce “ukr” to a rump state around Lviv and Kyiv?

Remember. You’ve already put sanctions. Are you prepared to drop every sanction and in return I keep all of donbas?

Read David Pyne peace plan and let me know what you think.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Ok. Let’s go down his 15 points

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. No. I have millions of artillery shells and enough internal Russian control to grind this down to get Odessa. Getting back the entire northern Black Sea coast and everything east of the dneiper is achievable. You’ve already sanctioned me.
4. No. These are russian federation territories now. The UN and new ukrainian government will recognize this as such.
5. Agreed.
6. Agreed
7. Agreed
8. Agreed
9. Agreed
10. Agreed
11. I am willing to join a U.S.-eu partnership in funding reconstruction and development efforts for the new Ukraine that is a landlocked state around Kyiv and Lviv
12. Agreed
13. Agreed
14. Agreed - on the condition that Austria and Switzerland sign written agreements that they will never levy economic sanctions or be Party to third party sanctions against the Russian federation. Their neutrality goes beyond military affairs.
15. Agreed

I have a new point:

16. Germany re starts and finishes Nordstream II and the project returns to pre-war status.

So in this exercise if I am Putin, I don’t see after everything I have observed and the sanctions already placed, why I would give up not taking the entire Ukrainian coastline. It’s a once in 100 year opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Bc reintegrating into the world economy is more profitable in the long run and my people need their Starbucks, IKEA and direct flights without the hassle of always going via Istanbul anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin has suffered a massive geopolitical defeat.

NATO is expanding even further and, with Finland, will share a very long border with Russia; Ukraine is an EU member state candidate; and, most damningly, Russia has been exposed as a weak military power. Whatever land Putin takes in the near future cannot be held by Russia. Finally, Russia already had demographic problems: now it has lost thousands in this war, thousands have left the country thereby crippling its economic future, and people are not going to be having babies in these conditions.

Clearly, invading was a very bad idea, and a criminal one, but most of what you're saying is talking points with no basis in fact.

Ask Turkey how awesome it is to be an EU candidate.

Russia doesn't have to be the strongest army in the world, it just has to be stronger than its adversary. In this context, "Russia is a weak military power" and "Ukraine needs kazillions billions of dollars in military aid to fight Russia" statements cannot both be true.

In that same vein, Russia's demographics may not be awesome but they are definitely better than Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost millions as refugees, and it's an open secret that not all of them left under duress; some have simply opted to live in Europe once this option has become available, which means they may not be keen to return once the war ends.

With regard to holding territory, Russia has been holding and metabolizing Crimea with no special problems, and it looks poised to hold on to it forever. It may or may not metabolize parts of Donbass that are populated largely by ethnic Russians who were decidedly NOT supportive of the Maidan coup and felt marginalized by the current Ukrainian government. If Russia captures and holds the Black Sea coastal areas, that will be the end of Ukraine's economy. Which is why it is critical that the parties sit down to talk now, because things aren't looking up, and typically, whenever the parties sit down to negotiate, the state of things at the time will be their starting point.

Pp here. You’ve got too narrow an aperture and recommend you consider more than Ukraine. I’m talking geopolitical defeat. Everything I cited is factual. Russia’s adversary is the United States and NATO and I hope you’ll agree we are considerably stronger and more competent. And, of course, China will have taken note. Big undefended border there. So, Russia’s future is bleak.

The US decided to see Russia as an adversary for its own internal political aims. And now it is using Ukraine as a bullet stopper in the same game. But I'm sure Ukrainians are super pleased to become casualties in the conflict you decided the US and NATO simply had to have with Russia.

Don’t be silly. Russia decided to invade Ukraine and consider NATO and the United States as enemies. Russia’s choice. But it was a poor choice and now its weakness and incompetence has been exposed. Putin has no one to blame but himself.

Yes he’s so weak the world is spending billions of dollars to fight him and he still is gaining ground, the bastard. So weak!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin has suffered a massive geopolitical defeat.

NATO is expanding even further and, with Finland, will share a very long border with Russia; Ukraine is an EU member state candidate; and, most damningly, Russia has been exposed as a weak military power. Whatever land Putin takes in the near future cannot be held by Russia. Finally, Russia already had demographic problems: now it has lost thousands in this war, thousands have left the country thereby crippling its economic future, and people are not going to be having babies in these conditions.

Clearly, invading was a very bad idea, and a criminal one, but most of what you're saying is talking points with no basis in fact.

Ask Turkey how awesome it is to be an EU candidate.

Russia doesn't have to be the strongest army in the world, it just has to be stronger than its adversary. In this context, "Russia is a weak military power" and "Ukraine needs kazillions billions of dollars in military aid to fight Russia" statements cannot both be true.

In that same vein, Russia's demographics may not be awesome but they are definitely better than Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost millions as refugees, and it's an open secret that not all of them left under duress; some have simply opted to live in Europe once this option has become available, which means they may not be keen to return once the war ends.

With regard to holding territory, Russia has been holding and metabolizing Crimea with no special problems, and it looks poised to hold on to it forever. It may or may not metabolize parts of Donbass that are populated largely by ethnic Russians who were decidedly NOT supportive of the Maidan coup and felt marginalized by the current Ukrainian government. If Russia captures and holds the Black Sea coastal areas, that will be the end of Ukraine's economy. Which is why it is critical that the parties sit down to talk now, because things aren't looking up, and typically, whenever the parties sit down to negotiate, the state of things at the time will be their starting point.

Ok I’m Putin, play this out. What can you offer me that is better than me taking the entire north Black Sea ports, all of the wheat and energy resources in eastern Ukraine and reduce “ukr” to a rump state around Lviv and Kyiv?

Remember. You’ve already put sanctions. Are you prepared to drop every sanction and in return I keep all of donbas?

Read David Pyne peace plan and let me know what you think.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Ok. Let’s go down his 15 points

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. No. I have millions of artillery shells and enough internal Russian control to grind this down to get Odessa. Getting back the entire northern Black Sea coast and everything east of the dneiper is achievable. You’ve already sanctioned me.
4. No. These are russian federation territories now. The UN and new ukrainian government will recognize this as such.
5. Agreed.
6. Agreed
7. Agreed
8. Agreed
9. Agreed
10. Agreed
11. I am willing to join a U.S.-eu partnership in funding reconstruction and development efforts for the new Ukraine that is a landlocked state around Kyiv and Lviv
12. Agreed
13. Agreed
14. Agreed - on the condition that Austria and Switzerland sign written agreements that they will never levy economic sanctions or be Party to third party sanctions against the Russian federation. Their neutrality goes beyond military affairs.
15. Agreed

I have a new point:

16. Germany re starts and finishes Nordstream II and the project returns to pre-war status.

So in this exercise if I am Putin, I don’t see after everything I have observed and the sanctions already placed, why I would give up not taking the entire Ukrainian coastline. It’s a once in 100 year opportunity.

For others, the above is in response to PP referring to this plan:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/proposed-peace-plan-end-russo-ukrainian-war-203009

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bc reintegrating into the world economy is more profitable in the long run and my people need their Starbucks, IKEA and direct flights without the hassle of always going via Istanbul anywhere.

I think that’s the least of his concerns, except maybe reintegration (as applied to the war industry and maybe high tech)
90% of his people have never been to ikea, let alone Starbucks or anywhere abroad
They are happy that now no one can go there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin has suffered a massive geopolitical defeat.

NATO is expanding even further and, with Finland, will share a very long border with Russia; Ukraine is an EU member state candidate; and, most damningly, Russia has been exposed as a weak military power. Whatever land Putin takes in the near future cannot be held by Russia. Finally, Russia already had demographic problems: now it has lost thousands in this war, thousands have left the country thereby crippling its economic future, and people are not going to be having babies in these conditions.

Clearly, invading was a very bad idea, and a criminal one, but most of what you're saying is talking points with no basis in fact.

Ask Turkey how awesome it is to be an EU candidate.

Russia doesn't have to be the strongest army in the world, it just has to be stronger than its adversary. In this context, "Russia is a weak military power" and "Ukraine needs kazillions billions of dollars in military aid to fight Russia" statements cannot both be true.

In that same vein, Russia's demographics may not be awesome but they are definitely better than Ukraine's. Ukraine has lost millions as refugees, and it's an open secret that not all of them left under duress; some have simply opted to live in Europe once this option has become available, which means they may not be keen to return once the war ends.

With regard to holding territory, Russia has been holding and metabolizing Crimea with no special problems, and it looks poised to hold on to it forever. It may or may not metabolize parts of Donbass that are populated largely by ethnic Russians who were decidedly NOT supportive of the Maidan coup and felt marginalized by the current Ukrainian government. If Russia captures and holds the Black Sea coastal areas, that will be the end of Ukraine's economy. Which is why it is critical that the parties sit down to talk now, because things aren't looking up, and typically, whenever the parties sit down to negotiate, the state of things at the time will be their starting point.

Pp here. You’ve got too narrow an aperture and recommend you consider more than Ukraine. I’m talking geopolitical defeat. Everything I cited is factual. Russia’s adversary is the United States and NATO and I hope you’ll agree we are considerably stronger and more competent. And, of course, China will have taken note. Big undefended border there. So, Russia’s future is bleak.

The US decided to see Russia as an adversary for its own internal political aims. And now it is using Ukraine as a bullet stopper in the same game. But I'm sure Ukrainians are super pleased to become casualties in the conflict you decided the US and NATO simply had to have with Russia.

Ukrainians are too dim to know any better. It’s a Slavic thing.

Give a few weapons, stoke some bitterness, and you can sit back and watch Slavs beat each other up.

Says someone from a country that restricts abortion in the 21st century lol

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/world/europe/in-russias-war-over-ukraine-china-and-india-emerge-as-financiers.html

“ Their ultimate appetite for Russian oil will either shake or support the global economy, another complicating factor in the West’s capacity to stay united through a war of attrition in Ukraine. So far, the West has remained steadfast in its commitment to Ukraine, but a long period of high fuel prices and potential shortages in Europe could become politically unpalatable.”

Silly Western whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/world/europe/in-russias-war-over-ukraine-china-and-india-emerge-as-financiers.html

“ Their ultimate appetite for Russian oil will either shake or support the global economy, another complicating factor in the West’s capacity to stay united through a war of attrition in Ukraine. So far, the West has remained steadfast in its commitment to Ukraine, but a long period of high fuel prices and potential shortages in Europe could become politically unpalatable.”

Silly Western whites.

All the more reason to switch to alternative fuel sources and not be so dependent on gasoline.

[Anonymous]

Everyone forgot about Ukraine….

Slava Ukrani lolololololol

It’s not even July.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone forgot about Ukraine….

Slava Ukrani lolololololol

It’s not even July.

Good morning! Yesterday, Wapo had an article about how Ukraine will be winning within the next few weeks as more European and American supplies come online and as Russia's capabilities come to a halt. Do you agree or disagree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone forgot about Ukraine….

Slava Ukrani lolololololol

It’s not even July.

Good morning! Yesterday, Wapo had an article about how Ukraine will be winning within the next few weeks as more European and American supplies come online and as Russia's capabilities come to a halt. Do you agree or disagree?

Yup, it’s here:

[Anonymous]

Also this:

[Anonymous]

Not Ukraine. But hey what’s another 40 billion? Keep flying your blue and yellow flags. I support [the current thing]!

[Anonymous]

Right. Because it shouldn’t matter to the USA if Russia invades and enriches themselves from one of their border nations. Nothing to see here, except wokeness.

I’m being sarcastic.