22 ms·

>- if Ukraine doesn’t surrender, we can expect less food production and potential oil disruption to center Europe If Russia doesn't surrender. Don't put the re

by Balero 4y ago

>- if Ukraine doesn’t surrender, we can expect less food production and potential oil disruption to center Europe If Russia doesn't surrender. Don't put the responsibility of global food prices on the people being repressed and killed in their own homes. Do it on the aggressors and war criminals.

lettergram 4y ago
Lol I’m not “placing blame” I’m stating what I see as facts. Russia will not surrender. The longer the Ukraine is in the war, the higher likelihood the people of Ukraine starve. We can make an argument that they shouldn’t surrender. That’s a moral position. I’m pointing out if we don’t figure it out within the next few months you’re not going to get the food from the region, as people are fighting over it. I don’t care who’s fault it is. We should recognize the situation so we can try to mitigate the issue.
- valeness 4y ago
  What the OP is saying is you could have phrased your comment like you did in your last paragraph here. Nobody disagrees that until it ends the situation will create further instability; but it can end with Russia giving up or surrendering as well. There is no global objective truth that Russia will not surrender; so by saying "I'm just stating facts" you're actually making a normative claim instead of a descriptive one; which can be viewed as problematic.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    It is common and reasonable to exclude unlikely if conditions from statements. They are just claiming that Russian concession is much less likely than a Ukrainian one, which I think many would agree with.
    - Balero 4y ago
      How about: If the war in Ukraine continues, we can expect less food production and potential oil disruption to center Europe. No need to comment on how to get to this outcome, or thoughts about who will make a concession leading to a big conversation away from the main point of what you were trying to say. Keep the if statement about exactly matters, not a secondary effect/cause.
- asah 4y ago
  Where do you get this "fact" that Russia won't surrender? More powerful armies have been forced to retreat from unsuccessful invasions.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    I dont see any way Ukraine can win. There’s a lot of real information out there (military reports). I’m not going to dive into that and debate it. There are also many channels covering this topic mostly neutral: Here’s one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KILAY2miQdI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KILAY2miQdI Here’s another: https://m.youtube.com/c/AlexanderMercourisReal https://m.youtube.com/c/AlexanderMercourisReal In short, for Russia to lose would be the end of Russia. They have to be seen as hitting their objectives (they’ve hit a few so far). Ukraine is massively out gunned, but has more manpower active. That said, I don’t see an outcome where Ukraine can regain any territory and will likely only lose more. That will further embolden Russia and will keep them from surrendering at the very least.
    - Balero 4y ago
      You are right there are lots of real information out there. You have picked a 1. random unpopular youtube channel (which might be good, I couldn't verify anything from it, as I couldn't find who ran it, if you know I am happy to be proved wrong) and 2. A disbarred barrister https://twitter.com/markgaleotti/status/927087181532991489?lang=bg https://twitter.com/markgaleotti/status/927087181532991489?l.... There is much better information to pick than this! Any information will have a bias, and if they claim to be neutral I personally get suspicious of what that bias is. Your assertion that you can't see anyway for Ukraine to win is based on "If Russia loses, it would be the end of Russia". Well, if Ukraine loses it will be the end of Ukraine, so I guess by your logic Russia can't win either? (TBF, everyone losing to some degree is right with war). I won't get drawn into a discussion about how the war will go. People qualified to make a guess have been wrong and wont make prediction. Neither of us is qualified, so I will not be weighing in on this except to say that unexpected things happen all the time in conflict.
      - 4y ago
- ailef 4y ago
  I don't understand what kind of bubble people are in if they think Russia is about to surrender soon. According to the Western media they were running out of ammo in March, April, May and June. Meanwhile, with an incompetent army running out of supplies, they were apparently able to occupy 20% of Ukraine's territory.
  - Balero 4y ago
    To be clear. I agree with you, I doubt Russia will surrender any time soon. The conclusion as far as food goes is that globally, plans should be made that do not count on any food from Ukraine, or Russia entering global markets. I just took umbrage that OP was seemingly (and probably unintentionally) putting the blame for the situation on Ukraine and not Russia.
    - ailef 4y ago
      My interpretation is that he phrased it like that because he sees Ukraine surrendering as the most likely scenario. Not to put blame or responsibility on Ukraine.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Innocent victims surrender all the time. I didn't read it as assigning blame or a moral position .
  - daemoens 4y ago
    The goal was 100% of the country, not 20%. They've been stalled with little progress over the past month.
    - ailef 4y ago
      I've never heard the goal was 100% of the country. Can you point to a source?
      - daemoens 4y ago
        Putin's speech on February 24th, the day of the invasion > "To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation." How do you demilitarize a nation by taking only 20% of it? The only way to do this would be to capture the entirety of the country.
stuckinhell 4y ago
In the real world, we all know Russia isn't going to surrender, and Ukraine is going to lose. That's why western leaders are putting distance between them and ukraine
- nradov 4y ago
  The most likely outcome is that neither side surrenders or loses. Instead the conflict will just grind on indefinitely as a slow war of attrition. While some western leaders are distancing themselves from Ukraine, others will continue to support Ukraine as a way to bleed Russia to death and discourage future invasions of other countries. Putin won't live forever. So the goal is just containment until he's replaced by someone less aggressive.
- Balero 4y ago
  > That's why western leaders are putting distance between them and Ukraine reply Where is this happening? The US sent another $Billion three days ago: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3120059/1-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/312005... Western leaders have stopped visiting because they just did a few months ago, they don't need some official state visit merry-go-round to show support. Also we do not "all know Ukraine is going to lose". In the real world, this is looking like a complete embarrassment for the Russian military. Hell we all knew the Taliban lost in Afghanistan in 2002 as well, and this is going much much better for Ukraine than it was for them.

by Balero 4y ago

lettergram 4y ago

Lol I’m not “placing blame” I’m stating what I see as facts. Russia will not surrender. The longer the Ukraine is in the war, the higher likelihood the people of Ukraine starve. We can make an argument that they shouldn’t surrender. That’s a moral position. I’m pointing out if we don’t figure it out within the next few months you’re not going to get the food from the region, as people are fighting over it. I don’t care who’s fault it is. We should recognize the situation so we can try to mitigate the issue.

valeness 4y ago
What the OP is saying is you could have phrased your comment like you did in your last paragraph here. Nobody disagrees that until it ends the situation will create further instability; but it can end with Russia giving up or surrendering as well. There is no global objective truth that Russia will not surrender; so by saying "I'm just stating facts" you're actually making a normative claim instead of a descriptive one; which can be viewed as problematic.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It is common and reasonable to exclude unlikely if conditions from statements. They are just claiming that Russian concession is much less likely than a Ukrainian one, which I think many would agree with.
  - Balero 4y ago
    How about: If the war in Ukraine continues, we can expect less food production and potential oil disruption to center Europe. No need to comment on how to get to this outcome, or thoughts about who will make a concession leading to a big conversation away from the main point of what you were trying to say. Keep the if statement about exactly matters, not a secondary effect/cause.
asah 4y ago
Where do you get this "fact" that Russia won't surrender? More powerful armies have been forced to retreat from unsuccessful invasions.
- lettergram 4y ago
  I dont see any way Ukraine can win. There’s a lot of real information out there (military reports). I’m not going to dive into that and debate it. There are also many channels covering this topic mostly neutral: Here’s one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KILAY2miQdI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KILAY2miQdI Here’s another: https://m.youtube.com/c/AlexanderMercourisReal https://m.youtube.com/c/AlexanderMercourisReal In short, for Russia to lose would be the end of Russia. They have to be seen as hitting their objectives (they’ve hit a few so far). Ukraine is massively out gunned, but has more manpower active. That said, I don’t see an outcome where Ukraine can regain any territory and will likely only lose more. That will further embolden Russia and will keep them from surrendering at the very least.
  - Balero 4y ago
    You are right there are lots of real information out there. You have picked a 1. random unpopular youtube channel (which might be good, I couldn't verify anything from it, as I couldn't find who ran it, if you know I am happy to be proved wrong) and 2. A disbarred barrister https://twitter.com/markgaleotti/status/927087181532991489?lang=bg https://twitter.com/markgaleotti/status/927087181532991489?l.... There is much better information to pick than this! Any information will have a bias, and if they claim to be neutral I personally get suspicious of what that bias is. Your assertion that you can't see anyway for Ukraine to win is based on "If Russia loses, it would be the end of Russia". Well, if Ukraine loses it will be the end of Ukraine, so I guess by your logic Russia can't win either? (TBF, everyone losing to some degree is right with war). I won't get drawn into a discussion about how the war will go. People qualified to make a guess have been wrong and wont make prediction. Neither of us is qualified, so I will not be weighing in on this except to say that unexpected things happen all the time in conflict.
    - 4y ago
ailef 4y ago
I don't understand what kind of bubble people are in if they think Russia is about to surrender soon. According to the Western media they were running out of ammo in March, April, May and June. Meanwhile, with an incompetent army running out of supplies, they were apparently able to occupy 20% of Ukraine's territory.
- Balero 4y ago
  To be clear. I agree with you, I doubt Russia will surrender any time soon. The conclusion as far as food goes is that globally, plans should be made that do not count on any food from Ukraine, or Russia entering global markets. I just took umbrage that OP was seemingly (and probably unintentionally) putting the blame for the situation on Ukraine and not Russia.
  - ailef 4y ago
    My interpretation is that he phrased it like that because he sees Ukraine surrendering as the most likely scenario. Not to put blame or responsibility on Ukraine.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Innocent victims surrender all the time. I didn't read it as assigning blame or a moral position .
- daemoens 4y ago
  The goal was 100% of the country, not 20%. They've been stalled with little progress over the past month.
  - ailef 4y ago
    I've never heard the goal was 100% of the country. Can you point to a source?
    - daemoens 4y ago
      Putin's speech on February 24th, the day of the invasion > "To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation." How do you demilitarize a nation by taking only 20% of it? The only way to do this would be to capture the entirety of the country.

stuckinhell 4y ago

In the real world, we all know Russia isn't going to surrender, and Ukraine is going to lose. That's why western leaders are putting distance between them and ukraine

nradov 4y ago
The most likely outcome is that neither side surrenders or loses. Instead the conflict will just grind on indefinitely as a slow war of attrition. While some western leaders are distancing themselves from Ukraine, others will continue to support Ukraine as a way to bleed Russia to death and discourage future invasions of other countries. Putin won't live forever. So the goal is just containment until he's replaced by someone less aggressive.
Balero 4y ago
> That's why western leaders are putting distance between them and Ukraine reply Where is this happening? The US sent another $Billion three days ago: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3120059/1-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/312005... Western leaders have stopped visiting because they just did a few months ago, they don't need some official state visit merry-go-round to show support. Also we do not "all know Ukraine is going to lose". In the real world, this is looking like a complete embarrassment for the Russian military. Hell we all knew the Taliban lost in Afghanistan in 2002 as well, and this is going much much better for Ukraine than it was for them.