Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Revan]

Ukraine counter-offer should be: a) full autonomy to Luhansk/Donetsk on the borders before the invasion; b) UN/OSCE controlled referendum for Crimea; c) neutrality but with some security guarantees (not that they matter for Russia, as we have seen).

Crimea is lost, but would be good if they can formally give it to Russia without losing face.

 

[Sarni]

Ukraine counter-offer should be: a) full autonomy to Luhansk/Donetsk on the borders before the invasion; b) UN/OSCE controlled referendum for Crimea; c) neutrality but with some security guarantees (not that they matter for Russia, as we have seen).

Crimea is lost, but would be good if they can formally give it to Russia without losing face.

There's zero chance Ukraine give up Crimea according to what I gather. My thinking had also been that they would have been right to recognize this to minimize losses but it doesn't seem to be a possibility even if this causes the war to drag for a long time.

 

[stefan92]

But wouldn't turning this into Putin's Afghanistan cause casualties to skyrocket?

The way things are going it might even be questionable if Russia is able to do that. They don't seem to be able to secure the airspace, so they can't risk to lose to many planes and helicopters, and they don't seem to be able to protect their logistics.

If Ukraine is able to keep it up, we might soon see the attacking forces running out of fuel and ammunition. They wouldn't be able to shell the cities anymore and would be hunted by the Ukrainians.

This is of course a military best case scenario for Ukraine, but it seems to be at least possible.

 

[MuFc_1992]

There's no way the World would just stand by and watch Putin launch tactical nukes as a country and not do anything. That would be an incredibly dangerous precedent to set for World politics.

But how would that change the current calculus for not getting involved in Ukraine? In fact the images and videos of the aftermath would be so horrific that It would actually dissuade West from getting involved.

 

[Revan]

There's zero chance Ukraine give up Crimea according to what I gather. My thinking had also been that they would have been right to recognize this to minimize losses but it doesn't seem to be a possibility even if this causes the war to drag for a long time.

Well, they will need to give something. And as far as I understand, even if a legitimate referendum was made, people in Crimea would vote to join Russia nowadays. So, they could justify it as 'the will of the people' etc.

Even with a regime change, it is very hard to see Russia giving Crimea back to Ukraine.

 

[Revan]

There's no way the World would just stand by and watch Putin launch tactical nukes as a country and not do anything. That would be an incredibly dangerous precedent to set for World politics.

It would be fecking horrible and a terrible precedent.

Not sure that the West would start a war over that though.

However, I do not think that is in cards. Russians still haven't used thermobaric weapons for example, so going to nukes doesn't seem reasonable. An Aleppo-fate for Ukrainian cities is very much on the cards though.

 

[Rightnr]

This is not a bad deal or rather not a bad starting point for Ukraine. If Putin is willing to go so low, he cannot be THAT confident.

So Zelensky is absolutely right to tell him to f off. Also, Russian promises are worth absolutely nothing at the moment (look at what they're doing with that nuclear power station). Once he has his puppet over Zelensky's head, he'll further drive the Russian propaganda and then do what he's doing now in 5-10 years (assuming he's not dead or his replacement continues the course).

Didn’t realize it had any blood left.

What's dead may never die.

Gosh, you mean they were lying again? Bunch of amoral cnuts.

But I was told the British government was leading the way. Are you telling me they lied again?

 

[groovyalbert]

It's sort of mad that, despite the advances made, Ukraine's forces seem to be holding out and, as new supplies arrive from allies, could arguably be in a relatively stronger position now than they were a few days ago.

God knows what they were expecting, but this is some Brasseye-level of invasion from the Kremlin. Realistically, could not be going worse.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).

 

[Rightnr]

It's sort of mad that, despite the advances made, Ukraine's forces seem to be holding out and, as new supplies arrive from allies, could arguably be in a relatively stronger position now than they were a few days ago.

God knows what they were expecting, but this is some Brasseye-level of invasion from the Kremlin. Realistically, could not be going worse.

Wait until the usual suspects come in to tell us it's all Western propaganda.

 

[RedSky]

But how would that change the current calculus for not getting involved in Ukraine? In fact the images and videos of the aftermath would be so horrific that It would actually dissuade West from getting involved.

If you allow a country to launch Nukes at another in 2022 without any serious military repercussions then we deserve to fail as a human species. It's unthinkable to me that we should allow Russia to get away with it. What stops China from doing the same? What stops America? The political pressure on every Western leader to react would be immense. There are some actions in war that you simply don't turn away from and using Nukes is one of them. It would be my morale obligation to uphold the same values of my Grandfathers who fought in WW2 and sign up immediately. I wouldn't hesitate.

 

[Zehner]

So if I'm not mistaken Russia stopped demanding a demilitarization of Ukraine since the last round of negotiations?

 

[FerociousCorgis]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).

how is no nato reasonable? This has already shown that if anything NATO is more needed or else Russia will just come back in whenever they want more ukraine land. Guess not just giving up land and future land that russia will inevitably want is unreasonable according to some

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Civilian casualties barely entered the 4 figures so far, 6 is way off yet. And if Ukraine wants independence, they'll have to turn this into Putin's Afghanistan. What you're proposing is to accept capitulation and complete surrender.

 

[rpitchfo]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).

it’s reasonable to change the constitution your country was founded upon…knowing Russia won’t be happy to stop there. Are you a Russian bot?!

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

how is no nato reasonable? This has already shown that if anything NATO is more needed or else Russia will just come back in whenever they want more ukraine land. Guess not just giving up land and future land that russia will inevitably want is unreasonable according to some

NATO is never happening. You will see nukes deployed before NATO installs itself within Ukraine. NATO also knows this (whether Zelensky does or not is debatable but he acts like a man who doesn't). No EU is the most controversial one there and I think you could push back on that.

 

[TMDaines]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).

Unless they are willing to sign away the whole of the Donbas, "they are prolonging suffering for no good reason"? Mariupol, Kramatorsk etc.?

 

[hellhunter]

So if I'm not mistaken Russia stopped demanding a demilitarization of Ukraine since the last round of negotiations?

Nazis in the government apparently also no longer an issue. Proper progress made by Russia

 

[MadMike]

But wouldn't turning this into Putin's Afghanistan cause casualties to skyrocket? I can also see Putin getting frustrated and using tactical Nukes if this drags on. I also don't see any deterrent against him using Nukes in Ukraine as it wouldn't result in MAD.

Depends how you perceive "Putin's Afghanistan", I guess. As a failed protracted war or literally a decade long resistance? I don't think even the biggest optimistic would say that the Russian economy will last in this form of isolation for another decade, or that Putin will last that long either. And Ukraine is receiving way more help than Afghanistan was.

Also the longer this drags on, the more aggressive Putin is getting, but also the bigger the damage to the Russian economy and the more active the West gets at sending help. Would you have said a week ago that NATO would be sending anti-tank, anti-air missiles and even fighter jets to Ukraine?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

it’s reasonable to change the constitution your country was founded upon…knowing Russia won’t be happy to stop there. Are you a Russian bot?!

Insofar as NATO goes, that is reasonable. I said I don't agree with "blocs" as it is too broad (they should be free to pursue EU membership).

 

[Rightnr]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.

It absolutely is not reasonable .

The 'separatists' (read criminals) barely control 1/3 of the two republics and they want the whole region? They also killed innocent people in that plane years ago, so they should not be given anything. The two regions also have all of Ukraine's gas reserves conveniently to make sure Russia keeps an iron fist around Europe's throat for its energy needs.

And bloody hell, how backwards do you have to be to talk about the human cost when Putin the terrorist is killing those civilians. Thinking like this, let's give away all of Europe to Putin, so he doesn't decide to bomb us all.

He should be made to pay for his war, one way or another.

 

[RedSky]

However, I do not think that is in cards. Russians still haven't used thermobaric weapons for example, so going to nukes doesn't seem reasonable. An Aleppo-fate for Ukrainian cities is very much on the cards though.

Agreed. I don't think Putin would ever use Nukes because despite being a greedy feck that loves money and loves power, he also does love the ideal of Russia. I don't think he would openly risk obliterating Russia in a nuclear war, it's all bullying tactics, flexing his muscles at the Western World.

He will however attempt to flatten cities using regular means. The longer this plays out the less likely Russia wins imo, I think they were expecting to be able to do a fast run and take Kyiv quickly and end the war before it's even begun.

 

[rpitchfo]

If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.

you’re right, giving Russia exactly what they want without just cause would end the war (for now)…I’ll give you that.

 

[MadMike]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).

According to my theory, anyone who accepts security guarantees from the country that twice ignored them to chip away at your territory and then launch a full scale invasion, is worse than criminally stupid. They would be a complete traitor.

 

[Raoul]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).

All three points involve a capitulation to Putin's demands, so none of them are even remotely reasonable, especially given the looming reality on the ground that Putin has not been successful in his military campaign at a time when the Russian economy is about to implode.

 

[dove]

Insofar as NATO goes, that is reasonable. I said I don't agree with "blocs" as it is too broad (they should be free to pursue EU membership).

They should be free to pursue any membership they wish.

 

[TMDaines]

If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.

That's the dumbest post I've read here all fortnight.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[MTF]

If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.

When its the other way around, you're all politics over realpolitik.

 

[MadMike]

If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.

I don't know man, only capitulation is offered so far so maybe let's not rush that far ahead eh?

 

[MadMike]

 

[Krakenzero]

But wouldn't turning this into Putin's Afghanistan cause casualties to skyrocket? I can also see Putin getting frustrated and using tactical Nukes if this drags on. I also don't see any deterrent against him using Nukes in Ukraine as it wouldn't result in MAD.

Then why didn't the Soviet Union use nukes in Afghanistan?

A good counter offer would be to give UN/NATO approved guarantees of non-hostility to russians in Donetsk-Lugantsk, to host a referendum in Crimea, plus 5-10 years of neutrality (which is what they need to get into NATO anyway) . That plus sanctions lifting is something Putin could sell if he wanted to. Spoiler: He won't.

 

[hellhunter]

Accepting those terms would be complete betrayal of the people who gave their life to defend Ukrainian independence.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.

Absolute garbage. Just complete nonsense. Stop.

 

[Rightnr]

If the Ukrainians were offered Moscow people here would think it was unreasonable. Nationalism running high among "liberals" (not leftists). Realpolitik over politics would be nice. Reminds me why I quit this thread.

I mean wtf does this even mean. Ukraine gets invaded, civilians get killed and as punishment Putin gets official recognition for Crimea, gets his buffer zone, gets all of Ukraine's gas reserves and you think that's reasonable?

This is without even mentioning Russia are not even asking for half, let alone all, of Ukraine. Prolonging this conflict is not good for Russia because China will start getting very tetchy with the looming food crisis.

Why give Putin his easy and quick win? He's basically proceeding as if his 'special military operation' was a full success.

 

[The Firestarter]

Why cant we ignore staff members? Very unfair.

 

[Eurotrash]

The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.

 

[Kaos]

Accepting those terms would be complete betrayal of the people who gave their life to defend Ukrainian independence.

If the alternative is Russia eventually taking Kiev (which is an eventual inevitability) and scores more Ukrainians dying, then unfortunately I don't see there being much of a choice.

If Ukraine keeps its independence despite the Russian onslaught (albeit with the aforementioned concessions), then I wouldn't say that they fought and died for nothing.

 

[11101]

The PM part has been debunked (or dropped) and the other two points are absolutely reasonable. If they don't accept that, and continue a war of attrition, then they are prolonging suffering for no good reason (if you assume that the deal is legitimate as ABC/NBC have reported). In the best case scenario, or close to it, the war ends with a settlement that looks like that. To throw that away now is insane.



According to "just war theory", the person refusing that is (at least rhetorically) criminal (in their stupidity).

How long does it take to join Nato? Take the deal to end the war and then join anyway before he can mount another attack. Not like Putin has ever respected any agreement he's made.


Also, the fact he is offering such generous terms at this stage shows how badly this invasion is going for them.

 

[Raoul]

The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.

If he is unsuccessful in winning the war, he won't have any leverage to claim any wins, at which point the his only "win" would be the survival of his regime in Russia. NATO & EU know this.

 

[Pintu]

The point is, for Russia to stop, Putin must get something that he can sell as a "win" so that he doesn't lose face. Crimea could be that.

The fact that they want to start to negotiate is a sign that the costs are becoming unbearable.

Of course the costs are unbearable on the long run. But I am not sure it is new. They were negotiating before. And they haven’t really backed down on anything so far.