Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[jhungary]

That must be the Ukranians taking "delivery". No way will they keep that many together now - far too valuable an asset for that level of concentration in wartime conditions.

No, this is inside Ukraine, people said it was shot in Stolbovaya at an unknown time.

Well I said a couple months ago Russia had 6-12 months left before it’s completely defeated on the battlefield . 12 months is September next year. I think we’re right on schedule.

12 months is a bit quick, I will say this is going to drag on for a while, if Ukraine want to take Crimea and Donbas as well. 12 months can probably roll back Russia in pre-February line, most likely not enough time to conquer Crimea by next September.

I wouldn't say it will not happen, stranger thing did happen and quite a lot in this war, nothing surprises me now maybe except if the Ukrainian were able to mount an amphibious assault toward Crimea?? But yeah, this is not likely to have Crimea and Donbas back by September next year.

 

[serenity]

How are you guys defining defeat? That Russia leaves pre war Ukriane Russia borders? Or reaches a settlement with Ukraine and Europe where Russia manages to annex some parts of Ukraine in exchange for ceasefire.

I think Russia and Ukraine and Europe might settle for the latter eventually. Economic war is damaging Europe and Russia alike. Ukraine wants to stop the war obviously as it is the only nation being actively destroyed by the war effects directly. But would Ukraine settle for Russia annexing parts of it? Even if just annexing smaller sections than the four new territories that Russia unilaterally declared as annexed?

I doubt Russia would settle for no annexation. It would not be able to face its people if it did that without total government change. So the question is if Ukraine will accept Russia's minimum demands on giving Russia certain lands official control over.

 

[Han Patriot]

No, this is inside Ukraine, people said it was shot in Stolbovaya at an unknown time.



12 months is a bit quick, I will say this is going to drag on for a while, if Ukraine want to take Crimea and Donbas as well. 12 months can probably roll back Russia in pre-February line, most likely not enough time to conquer Crimea by next September.

I wouldn't say it will not happen, stranger thing did happen and quite a lot in this war, nothing surprises me now maybe except if the Ukrainian were able to mount an amphibious assault toward Crimea?? But yeah, this is not likely to have Crimea and Donbas back by September next year.

So when is Ukraine getting back Crimea? Ukraine will not join NATo, because if they joined NATo, attacking Crimea means Nato is attacking Russia and id Russia retaliates, its WW3. This is just common sense.

How are you guys defining defeat? That Russia leaves pre war Ukriane Russia borders? Or reaches a settlement with Ukraine and Europe where Russia manages to annex some parts of Ukraine in exchange for ceasefire.

I think Russia and Ukraine and Europe might settle for the latter eventually. Economic war is damaging Europe and Russia alike. Ukraine wants to stop the war obviously as it is the only nation being actively destroyed by the war effects directly. But would Ukraine settle for Russia annexing parts of it? Even if just annexing smaller sections than the four new territories that Russia unilaterally declared as annexed?

I doubt Russia would settle for no annexation. It would not be able to face its people if it did that without total government change. So the question is if Ukraine will accept Russia's minimum demands on giving Russia certain lands official control over.

I believe the Russians would accept territories east of Dniper plus a treaty banning NaTo expansion into Ukraine. But i doubt that joker would accept it, if China starts pumping out weapons for Russia, not even Nato can help Ukraine. With only 3 spy sats, the IsR if tge Russians are next to 0, they should have accessed Chinese ISRs, out system is even larger than the Yanks. That's what happens when you believe democracy can save your country. Lol

 

[jhungary]

How are you guys defining defeat? That Russia leaves pre war Ukriane Russia borders? Or reaches a settlement with Ukraine and Europe where Russia manages to annex some parts of Ukraine in exchange for ceasefire.

I think Russia and Ukraine and Europe might settle for the latter eventually. Economic war is damaging Europe and Russia alike. Ukraine wants to stop the war obviously as it is the only nation being actively destroyed by the war effects directly. But would Ukraine settle for Russia annexing parts of it? Even if just annexing smaller sections than the four new territories that Russia unilaterally declared as annexed?

I doubt Russia would settle for no annexation. It would not be able to face its people if it did that without total government change. So the question is if Ukraine will accept Russia's minimum demands on giving Russia certain lands official control over.

As I said before, the key for Ukraine to settle is NATO, anything else is secondary unless they have NATO membership, because without NATO Membership, this is going to be Part 1 of whatever war Russia had in mind on Ukraine (or Part 2 if you counted 2014) Which mean without NATO membership, there are probably going to be no deal, because no one can guarantee Russia will not invade again, and no one can guarantee NATO and the west would support Ukraine if they were invaded again. That's pointless to cease fire if this is the case, that's number 1.

As for whether or not Ukraine would accept land for peace, that's solely up to the Ukrainian to decide, because that was their land, its not Russian, it's not British, it's not American. Which mean that term would have to be satisfy by the Ukrainian as Zelenskyy said many, many time. I would say unless Ukraine suffer major military defeat in the next 6 to 12 months, I don't see any land concession is acceptable in Ukrainian end. They are 3 for 3 now, the Ukrainian won Battle of Kyiv, Battle of Kharkiv and Battle of Kherson, which mean only 1 battle outstanding before they roll back toward pre-Feb 2022 line, that's Battle of Luhansk. 2 if You also count Battle of Zaporizhzhia but then the Russian didn't get much in Zaporizhzhia. You need incentive to be able to settle, if not no one is going to settle, and for the Ukrainian, would you settle now? With them beaten back Russian thrice.

As for economy, the different is, EU can take those hit, in fact, EU had it worse during COVID, this is actually not as bad as COVID. Do bear in mind at least you get to work now, instead of everybody staying at home during COVID. On the other hand, Russia is hanging on by a thread. They are running on the profit to which selling their oil and gas to China and India, but then they can only do it with gas and oil price is high, and that is not a long term solution as it's only 1/3 of Russia economy, with the rest to become almost net zero. The war is costing Russia dearly both financially and in resource, the problem is, can they last until there are changes in the battlefield?? That's the issue here. But conventional wisdom would suggest the threshold in EU and US is going to be greater than the threshold in Russia. Because while we are in recession, unless you work in energy sector in Russia, you get almost nothing. And not all Russian works in energy sector....

 

[serenity]

So when is Ukraine getting back Crimea? Ukraine will not join NATo, because if they joined NATo, attacking Crimea means Nato is attacking Russia and id Russia retaliates, its WW3. This is just common sense.


I believe the Russians would accept territories east of Dniper plus a treaty banning NaTo expansion into Ukraine. But i doubt that joker would accept it, if China starts pumping out weapons for Russia, not even Nato can help Ukraine. With only 3 spy sats, the IsR if tge Russians are next to 0, they should have accessed Chinese ISRs, out system is even larger than the Yanks. That's what happens when you believe democracy can save your country. Lol

1. China will not assist Russia with any direct military assistance unless Russia itself is threatened and even then it is unnecessary as no one has the ability to threaten Russia as long as it is a nuclear power and a major nuclear power too. It would only damage China's current and future ability to incorporate Europe into at least a more neutral stance if not a more closely tied with China future. Germany has increased cooperation and dependence with China. Supporting Russia against Europe would sever any chance of this for near or mid term future.

Furthermore, Russia and China are long term strategic competitors.

2. I think Russia cannot and possibly should not be draining itself like this and cannot afford to in more ideal cases. They are not able to totally take over Ukraine. They have trouble taking and securing the regions they unilaterally annexed. But they will not leave without gains to show. At least the political class cannot afford to do this. So it really depends on Ukraine and what they find acceptable.

Ukraine is hoping to make such strong efforts to repel Russia that it hopes to negotiate a better deal or get Russia to find a political way out without taking Ukrainian land or a minimal. Ukraine is the one suffering huge direct tangible losses from war in terms of destroyed cities. NATO and US are not exactly disliking that Russia is militarily draining itself. But also would not like this to escalate far or the war to expand beyond Ukraine. It would be okay with a settlement.

Russia of course would not allow even a post settlement Ukraine to become part of NATO. That goes without saying. Otherwise they have lost even a greater strategic goal than settling without annexing land.

 

[Han Patriot]

1. China will not assist Russia with any direct military assistance unless Russia itself is threatened and even then it is unnecessary as no one has the ability to threaten Russia as long as it is a nuclear power and a major nuclear power too. It would only damage China's current and future ability to incorporate Europe into at least a more neutral stance if not a more closely tied with China future. Germany has increased cooperation and dependence with China. Supporting Russia against Europe would sever any chance of this for near or mid term future.

Furthermore, Russia and China are long term strategic competitors.

2. I think Russia cannot and possibly should not be draining itself like this and cannot afford to in more ideal cases. They are not able to totally take over Ukraine. They have trouble taking and securing the regions they unilaterally annexed. But they will not leave without gains to show. At least the political class cannot afford to do this. So it really depends on Ukraine and what they find acceptable.

Ukraine is hoping to make such strong efforts to repel Russia that it hopes to negotiate a better deal or get Russia to find a political way out without taking Ukrainian land or a minimal. Ukraine is the one suffering huge direct tangible losses from war in terms of destroyed cities. NATO and US are not exactly disliking that Russia is militarily draining itself. But also would not like this to escalate far or the war to expand beyond Ukraine. It would be okay with a settlement.

Russia of course would not allow even a post settlement Ukraine to become part of NATO. That goes without saying. Otherwise they have lost even a greater strategic goal than settling without annexing land.

Agreed. But we can supply clandestinely, Iranian drones using Chinese engines are a good example. We should make sure the war in Ukraine is prolonged to drain the Europeans and Americans. Technically a war in Ukraine is beneficial to China.

The Americans were already dangling Siberia as a reward if we join the sanctions. Historically, those lands belong to us. But then the Anglos had been good with divide and conquer. So the best policy is support Russia economically and clandestinely supply components.

If we join the sanctions, Russia is gone, their territories would be divid3d. But then we will be next...

 

[serenity]

As I said before, the key for Ukraine to settle is NATO, anything else is secondary unless they have NATO membership, because without NATO Membership, this is going to be Part 1 of whatever war Russia had in mind on Ukraine (or Part 2 if you counted 2014) Which mean without NATO membership, there are probably going to be no deal, because no one can guarantee Russia will not invade again, and no one can guarantee NATO and the west would support Ukraine if they were invaded again. That's pointless to cease fire if this is the case, that's number 1.

Russia cannot afford to allow that otherwise its political class will be asked by the Russian people, why they went on a year or longer war (by the previous suggested theoretical resolution of Sep 2023) without even preventing Ukraine from going NATO.

The guarantee would only be that Russia tried and could not take over all of Ukraine and can barely hold control of some parts that are constantly contested. The concern for distant future restart of war where Russia builds up a big military force, well the guarantee against that is that it takes Russia ages and ages in the form of many decades to build up to do that and it is all visible and noticeable. So Europe and NATO can rest assured that if Russia's future intention is to do so, then they can know well in advance and if not due to European lethargy or political blindness, then something similar to how they are with this war will probably repeat. Essentially it would be how well Europe does economically for that time vs and compared with how well Russia does. If Russia booms for the next few decades and builds up its military, well Europe can notice easily and then discuss how to deal with the threat of potential repeat of Ukraine war.

As for whether or not Ukraine would accept land for peace, that's solely up to the Ukrainian to decide, because that was their land, its not Russian, it's not British, it's not American. Which mean that term would have to be satisfy by the Ukrainian as Zelenskyy said many, many time. I would say unless Ukraine suffer major military defeat in the next 6 to 12 months, I don't see any land concession is acceptable in Ukrainian end. They are 3 for 3 now, the Ukrainian won Battle of Kyiv, Battle of Kharkiv and Battle of Kherson, which mean only 1 battle outstanding before they roll back toward pre-Feb 2022 line, that's Battle of Luhansk. 2 if You also count Battle of Zaporizhzhia but then the Russian didn't get much in Zaporizhzhia. You need incentive to be able to settle, if not no one is going to settle, and for the Ukrainian, would you settle now? With them beaten back Russian thrice.

As for economy, the different is, EU can take those hit, in fact, EU had it worse during COVID, this is actually not as bad as COVID. Do bear in mind at least you get to work now, instead of everybody staying at home during COVID. On the other hand, Russia is hanging on by a thread. They are running on the profit to which selling their oil and gas to China and India, but then they can only do it with gas and oil price is high, and that is not a long term solution as it's only 1/3 of Russia economy, with the rest to become almost net zero. The war is costing Russia dearly both financially and in resource, the problem is, can they last until there are changes in the battlefield?? That's the issue here. But conventional wisdom would suggest the threshold in EU and US is going to be greater than the threshold in Russia. Because while we are in recession, unless you work in energy sector in Russia, you get almost nothing. And not all Russian works in energy sector....

I think all this is really indeed up to how Ukraine wants to go. At the moment they are hoping to achieve a situation where Russia finds a political way out. It seems not likely that Russia will talk and find a way out for political class without taking Ukrainian land.

If Russia insists on Ukraine not part of NATO, annexed lands remain with Russia, Ukraine may as well not accept it since they can contest these annexed lands and keep Russia draining. But the cost to Ukraine and the west is significant in reality (as opposed to anti Russia and pro Ukraine propaganda which promotes every hit they make and omits every hit the Russians make).

The balance is somewhere there and Ukraine wants to fight it out a bit longer and see if they can manage to get Russia to understand that it does not (currently) accept Russia taking any Ukrainian land. How both sides approach future negotiations on ceasefire depends on how much leverage and power they hold. Ukraine can continue draining Russia (at great cost to itself and some cost to the west) so how will Russia want to settle? Give back Ukrainian lands, west removes sanctions, etc etc. Russia says no I want at least those guarantees - no NATO for Ukraine, no EU for Ukraine, and I also want those annexed lands. Ukraine says well I can keep draining you and Russia replies with we shall see who drains first.

Agreed. But we can supply clandestinely, Iranian drones using Chinese engines are a good example. We should make sure the war in Ukraine is prolonged to drain the Europeans and Americans. Technically a war in Ukraine is beneficial to China.

The Americans were already dangling Siberia as a reward if we join the sanctions. Historically, those lands belong to us. But then the Anglos had been good with divide and conquer. So the best policy is support Russia economically and clandestinely supply components.

If we join the sanctions, Russia is gone, their territories would be divid3d. But then we will be next to be destroyed by the cabal.

Supplying ISR at most since Russia's ISR is a bit weaker in some respects but that would be obvious to observers. Chinese ISR drone networks are distinct. You cannot do that clandestinely. If you're talking about space based ISR, well Russia has enough of that themselves.

The Americans are not dangling any rewards for joining their side. There's no reason China will join their side in any separate domain of great power struggle and there's no way US would trust China on their side. China would have no reason to go into conflict with Russia.

Again Russia and China are about as big adversaries and China and USA. Even worse, they are neighbors! It's just not seemingly that way to you now because of Soviet history, blah blah unity, and currently political alignment during a time where Russia is weak. If Russia is strong, it would either venture west or venture east! I think Chinese need to stop romanticizing the idea of Soviet Union and what Russia is! I hear these inaccurate understandings from Chinese people all the time! Russia is as great a threat to China as it is to Europe! when it is weak, Europe is closer and during the last eras Russia has more ties with Europe, Europe threatens Russia more than China threatens Russia ergo Russia focus, attention and aggressions are more direct west than east this time.

 

[One_Nation]

Its just common sense, look tge Dniper river is not a small river. Blow up tge bridges, which is what they just did, and concentrate on the East. Then solidify those holdings while continuing to bombard tge western civillian infrastructure. I was so surprised that the Russians only took 3 days to destroy 40% of Ukrianian power capacity. It shows me they never really wanted to go total war. Russia is not going against Ukriane here, they are going against tye whole Nato and the only way they can conquer yhe whole Ukriane is if China steps in to supply Russia. People tend to forget its Ukraine getting destroyed here not Russia. Lol


People need to look at this objectively, not emotionally as if its evil vs good.


Wanna make a bet? If within 12 months tye Russians are not out of Ukriane, i win, if i am wrong, I will leave. Come on, lets bet, my view is this can drag on foe years. Depends on hw you calculate it, tye territories controlled by Russia is the size of 2 average size European country, some say 20%,you say 15%.

There is one important factor that gives Russia an edge i.e. Russia has marked the entire Ukrainian territory for missile attacks. Ukraine/Nato don't have that against Russia yet.
Russia can use it to damage infrastructure whenever it wants unless Ukraine get a technology to intercept each and every incoming missile. Until that time Russia can hit power stations or other critical supplies. How long can Ukrainians survive without power?

Other factor is uncapped help from USA. What happens to Ukraine when that stops? Militarily, Ukraine became Russia's Afghanistan. Financially, Ukraine can become America's Afghanistan 2.0. A military that they have to keep funding or it will collapse.

 

[thetutle]

Russia cannot afford to allow that otherwise its political class will be asked by the Russian people, why they went on a year or longer war (by the previous suggested theoretical resolution of Sep 2023) without even preventing Ukraine from going NATO.

The guarantee would only be that Russia tried and could not take over all of Ukraine and can barely hold control of some parts that are constantly contested. The concern for distant future restart of war where Russia builds up a big military force, well the guarantee against that is that it takes Russia ages and ages in the form of many decades to build up to do that and it is all visible and noticeable. So Europe and NATO can rest assured that if Russia's future intention is to do so, then they can know well in advance and if not due to European lethargy or political blindness, then something similar to how they are with this war will probably repeat. Essentially it would be how well Europe does economically for that time vs and compared with how well Russia does. If Russia booms for the next few decades and builds up its military, well Europe can notice easily and then discuss how to deal with the threat of potential repeat of Ukraine war.



I think all this is really indeed up to how Ukraine wants to go. At the moment they are hoping to achieve a situation where Russia finds a political way out. It seems not likely that Russia will talk and find a way out for political class without taking Ukrainian land.

If Russia insists on Ukraine not part of NATO, annexed lands remain with Russia, Ukraine may as well not accept it since they can contest these annexed lands and keep Russia draining. But the cost to Ukraine and the west is significant in reality (as opposed to anti Russia and pro Ukraine propaganda which promotes every hit they make and omits every hit the Russians make).

The balance is somewhere there and Ukraine wants to fight it out a bit longer and see if they can manage to get Russia to understand that it does not (currently) accept Russia taking any Ukrainian land. How both sides approach future negotiations on ceasefire depends on how much leverage and power they hold. Ukraine can continue draining Russia (at great cost to itself and some cost to the west) so how will Russia want to settle? Give back Ukrainian lands, west removes sanctions, etc etc. Russia says no I want at least those guarantees - no NATO for Ukraine, no EU for Ukraine, and I also want those annexed lands. Ukraine says well I can keep draining you and Russia replies with we shall see who drains first.



Supplying ISR at most since Russia's ISR is a bit weaker in some respects but that would be obvious to observers. Chinese ISR drone networks are distinct. You cannot do that clandestinely. If you're talking about space based ISR, well Russia has enough of that themselves.

The Americans are not dangling any rewards for joining their side. There's no reason China will join their side in any separate domain of great power struggle and there's no way US would trust China on their side. China would have no reason to go into conflict with Russia.

Again Russia and China are about as big adversaries and China and USA. Even worse, they are neighbors! It's just not seemingly that way to you now because of Soviet history, blah blah unity, and currently political alignment during a time where Russia is weak. If Russia is strong, it would either venture west or venture east! I think Chinese need to stop romanticizing the idea of Soviet Union and what Russia is! I hear these inaccurate understandings from Chinese people all the time! Russia is as great a threat to China as it is to Europe! when it is weak, Europe is closer and during the last eras Russia has more ties with Europe, Europe threatens Russia more than China threatens Russia ergo Russia focus, attention and aggressions are more direct west than east this time.

Well Ukraine just invaded the sovereign russian city of Kherson. And Russia cant do much about it. so noone cares what russia can accept or wont accept. They will just keep attacking until russia back away. If russia can prevent ukraine making a sovereign decision to join NATO or EU, russia and aggression will be rewarded. So noone will allow russia to dictate those terms.

Other factor is uncapped help from USA. What happens to Ukraine when that stops? Militarily, Ukraine became Russia's Afghanistan. Financially, Ukraine can become America's Afghanistan 2.0. A military that they have to keep funding or it will collapse.

Without American support its safe to say ukraine will be overrun sooner or later. So if help dried up, US has accepted russian territorial expansion. They allowed it once already after WW2, so we'll see if they allow it now. It doesn't look like it.

 

[jhungary]

Russia cannot afford to allow that otherwise its political class will be asked by the Russian people, why they went on a year or longer war (by the previous suggested theoretical resolution of Sep 2023) without even preventing Ukraine from going NATO.

The guarantee would only be that Russia tried and could not take over all of Ukraine and can barely hold control of some parts that are constantly contested. The concern for distant future restart of war where Russia builds up a big military force, well the guarantee against that is that it takes Russia ages and ages in the form of many decades to build up to do that and it is all visible and noticeable. So Europe and NATO can rest assured that if Russia's future intention is to do so, then they can know well in advance and if not due to European lethargy or political blindness, then something similar to how they are with this war will probably repeat. Essentially it would be how well Europe does economically for that time vs and compared with how well Russia does. If Russia booms for the next few decades and builds up its military, well Europe can notice easily and then discuss how to deal with the threat of potential repeat of Ukraine war.

Problem is whether or not Ukraine join NATO is not really up to Russia to decide, I mean what Russia can do if Ukraine want to join NATO and NATO said yes? You nuke Western Europe?

This is not something Russia have reach on, I mean, what stop Jan Stoltenberg tomorrow say, "Now I will bend all the rules and accept Ukraine membership without every country in NATO agree"? I mean, that is highly undemocratic but that can be done, so is US and UK and some core European members form another NATO like binding organisation and invite Ukraine to be part of. Russia also cannot have anything to veto that. it's not UN, and we are not talking about Security Council.

Whether or not Ukraine will join NATO or a NATO like organisation is beside Russian point, Russia can say no to negotiation, but again, that will come back to who want it the most. Judging by the fact on the ground, Russia is the one retreating, and Ukrainian is the one that advancing at the moment, again, would Ukraine want to talk about peace now??

This is much further than Russia pulls all the force off Ukraine, the war did not end there, because the trust between Ukraine and Russia is completely gone, in a political and diplomatic sense, it makes no sense for either side to stop the war right now unless there are incentive to do so, and the incentive of both side is in direct conflict with the other side, that's the thing to consider here.

I think all this is really indeed up to how Ukraine wants to go. At the moment they are hoping to achieve a situation where Russia finds a political way out. It seems not likely that Russia will talk and find a way out for political class without taking Ukrainian land.

If Russia insists on Ukraine not part of NATO, annexed lands remain with Russia, Ukraine may as well not accept it since they can contest these annexed lands and keep Russia draining. But the cost to Ukraine and the west is significant in reality (as opposed to anti Russia and pro Ukraine propaganda which promotes every hit they make and omits every hit the Russians make).

The balance is somewhere there and Ukraine wants to fight it out a bit longer and see if they can manage to get Russia to understand that it does not (currently) accept Russia taking any Ukrainian land. How both sides approach future negotiations on ceasefire depends on how much leverage and power they hold. Ukraine can continue draining Russia (at great cost to itself and some cost to the west) so how will Russia want to settle? Give back Ukrainian lands, west removes sanctions, etc etc. Russia says no I want at least those guarantees - no NATO for Ukraine, no EU for Ukraine, and I also want those annexed lands. Ukraine says well I can keep draining you and Russia replies with we shall see who drains first.

Again, you are missing a very obvious point. It does not really matter if Ukraine were able to cede their land, that is not the primary issue here, the primary issue here is Ukraine don't Trust the Russian, which mean even if Russia say tomorrow "I am going to withdraw from Ukraine" that does not end the war there, because it does not guarantee Russia will not come back for round 2. You can cede anything to Russia or don't cede anything for Russia that does not matter for the Ukrainian. Because peace with a rifle next to you all the time is no peace, if Ukraine want peace, they will need to either snuff Russian desire of invasion, or have Russia no longer become a threat. The second part is ALWAYS NOT ACHEIVEABLE for the Ukrainian because the Russian have 6500 nuclear warheads, which mean conservatively, Ukraine needed is not Russian boots off Ukrainian ground, Ukraine need is a security guarantee that Russia will not be able to do it again, or at least have to think twice before they will do it again. If this is not met, there can be no settlement, because there can be no peace, then why bother to settle.

 

[The SC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591124022162444289

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591164789824233472

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591134781781049344

@The SC
Thats already more then the max 3 losses from your source buddy….

Three empty trucks!?
Are there other gifts?

 

[serenity]

Well Ukraine just invaded the sovereign russian city of Kherson. And Russia cant do much about it. so noone cares what russia can accept or wont accept. They will just keep attacking until russia back away. If russia can prevent ukraine making a sovereign decision to join NATO or EU, russia and aggression will be rewarded. So noone will allow russia to dictate those terms.

That city is Russian annexed unilaterally. It is challenged by Ukraine. From Ukraine's pov it is attacking the Ukrainian city of Kherson recently and previously taken over by Russia during this war. This part comes under what I said about Ukraine being able to constantly drain Russia by contesting Russian military control over any parts of UKRAINE that it controls. For semantics, it's important to be on the same page wrt this. Any land prior to this war that was Ukrainian, let's call as Ukraine or as Russian unilaterally annexed.

It all depends on how well Ukraine can challenge this Russian invasion. That ability will dictate how well they can negotiate for favorable outcomes and settlements.

Problem is whether or not Ukraine join NATO is not really up to Russia to decide, I mean what Russia can do if Ukraine want to join NATO and NATO said yes? You nuke Western Europe?

Russia will surely demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO and possibly also stay out of EU. What if they said yes? Well resuming the war for starters. If Russia decides that's a bad trap to be caught in, then they are out of options. Nuking of course is not an option but it's Russia also ... so...

This is not something Russia have reach on, I mean, what stop Jan Stoltenberg tomorrow say, "Now I will bend all the rules and accept Ukraine membership without every country in NATO agree"? I mean, that is highly undemocratic but that can be done, so is US and UK and some core European members form another NATO like binding organisation and invite Ukraine to be part of. Russia also cannot have anything to veto that. it's not UN, and we are not talking about Security Council.

Whether or not Ukraine will join NATO or a NATO like organisation is beside Russian point, Russia can say no to negotiation, but again, that will come back to who want it the most. Judging by the fact on the ground, Russia is the one retreating, and Ukrainian is the one that advancing at the moment, again, would Ukraine want to talk about peace now??

This is much further than Russia pulls all the force off Ukraine, the war did not end there, because the trust between Ukraine and Russia is completely gone, in a political and diplomatic sense, it makes no sense for either side to stop the war right now unless there are incentive to do so, and the incentive of both side is in direct conflict with the other side, that's the thing to consider here.


Again, you are missing a very obvious point. It does not really matter if Ukraine were able to cede their land, that is not the primary issue here, the primary issue here is Ukraine don't Trust the Russian, which mean even if Russia say tomorrow "I am going to withdraw from Ukraine" that does not end the war there, because it does not guarantee Russia will not come back for round 2. You can cede anything to Russia or don't cede anything for Russia that does not matter for the Ukrainian. Because peace with a rifle next to you all the time is no peace, if Ukraine want peace, they will need to either snuff Russian desire of invasion, or have Russia no longer become a threat. The second part is ALWAYS NOT ACHEIVEABLE for the Ukrainian because the Russian have 6500 nuclear warheads, which mean conservatively, Ukraine needed is not Russian boots off Ukrainian ground, Ukraine need is a security guarantee that Russia will not be able to do it again, or at least have to think twice before they will do it again. If this is not met, there can be no settlement, because there can be no peace, then why bother to settle.

Sure the Ukraine doesn't trust Russia. What are its options then?

1. continue war as is with the hope of pushing Russia out. There is simply no way that can be done without western supplies increasing. Ukraine also does not have infinite men and ammo.

2. settle in which case the Russians are likely to demand those conditions in exchange for ceasefire which obviously benefits Ukraine more than it benefits Russia since the war is in Ukraine and not in Russia (not treating annexed lands as Russia).

3. continue and up the effort to push Russia into settling under more favorable deals with Ukraine.

Ukraine is picking option 3 for now. They require more men and material to keep up the effort.

You're suggesting other options involving Ukraine joining NATO?

It may consider and say so but will it do it and will NATO accept? Because you cannot ignore that Russia will respond to that since it is its declared strategic goal after all. So why ignore that entirely and simply claim as if you are absolutely right that Ukraine will have to join NATO for future security. Isn't that ignoring the whole supposed reason for actual direct kinetic war? Just to say okay we're both bloody now and I'm gonna join NATO. Russia would have nothing to say? I think that's delusional.

 

[The SC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591175418685853697

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591134422522560512

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591153536456220672

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591338999402336257

 

[Oldman1]

Some quick info ( for those like me , who had to look this up ) :


155 mm artillery projectile , at max range , will have half of it's round land within 267 meters , of their intended target.

With PGK ( Precision Guidance Kit ), they would hit within 50 m of the target at any range.

The Excalibur , effectively hit within 6 m of a target.

As for costs :

PGK costs about $10,000 , Excalibur - 100,000$ .

So you can say it the Excalibur is 10 times more accurate , but also costs 10 times more.



~

The 50 meters was the U.S. Army objective goal presented to defense companies when the PGK program was introduced. Right now its accuracy is about 10m or 30 ft. The Excalibur has around 2 meters from the testing videos I've seen that was 10 years ago. Not 6m, old info. So PGK is 10 times cheaper and just little bit less accurate.

 

[Oldman1]

Are you that high on copium that you believe Russia isn't prepared for the winter? I mean when was the last time they did that, fight in the winter?! Even *if* they lacked modern winter gear, they could simply draw upon millions of winter kits from Soviet stockpiles. Those bided them through all those Russian winters.

LOL! https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/20...ys-1-5-mln-military-uniforms-are-missing-news

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591056369113001987

Lack of equipment even earlier in the war.

And you are telling me that they have stocks of decades old winter gear ready for the mobilized troops as well as the troops that have been there since February?

Russia will surely demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO and possibly also stay out of EU. What if they said yes? Well resuming the war for starters. If Russia decides that's a bad trap to be caught in, then they are out of options. Nuking of course is not an option but it's Russia also ... so...

Russia is not going to use nukes even if Ukraine joins NATO or EU. And considering as you said, Ukraine doesn't trust Russia's word since the violation of the Budapest Memorandum in respect to their territory, its easy to see why Ukraine wants to join NATO, obviously right now NATO countries don't want to go to war with Russia. But at the same time we don't want any future conflicts or war in Ukraine after all this. So having Ukraine in NATO is the best security guarantee that Ukraine as for, unless we go to another best alternative option for all sides including Russia. A very strong Ukrainian military that can handle any future war with Russia from western aircraft to tanks to cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, etc.