8 ms·
Never forget: Russia can end the war tomorrow. Simply give up and start retreating.
by martin_a 2y ago
Never forget: Russia can end the war tomorrow. Simply give up and start retreating.
- MrMcCall 2y ago[flagged]
- mdp2021 2y agoThere was that masterpiece from Nolan, in which the main strategist and enforcer during a major assembly says "It's easy: we kill the Batman". The proposal was met with some noise, because the public expected more "how" to such "what".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ijasd 2y ago[flagged]
- pudo 2y agoUkraine is not part of NATO. Should they wish to do so, they are a sovereign state and should be free to apply, entirely irrespective of the feelings of anyone in Moscow. Until the day of their full admission to NATO, they cannot be held liable, punished or even criticized for any of the actions of NATO. Specifically, starting a full illegal invasion against them has nothing to do with NATO.
- throwaway379316 2y ago[dead]
- sedan_baklazhan 2y agoSounds like this is the main victory plan of the West. But wait: what if Russia doesn't do that? Are there plans for that (highly unlikely) course of events?
- martin_a 2y ago"the West" has just lifted restrictions on (at this point American) weapon systems in reaction to continued aggression, and involvement of further countries, from Russia. I think even more could and will be done if Russia doesn't get the memo. And seeing that a "special military operation" takes 300 times as long as expected would for sane people be a hint to reevaluate what they're doing.
- sedan_baklazhan 2y agoHm. But what if Russia doesn't give up even now? Do you have a plan for that? The "3 day" meme actually originates from the USA. Russia didn't say anything about the terms (ever). How long did your war in Afghanistan take, by the way?
- mcphage 2y agoYou mean the one we spent 20 years at and lost, having to do exactly what OP is suggesting? On the other hand, 20 years in Afghanistan led to less than 2,000 US soldiers dead, and I think Russian passed that many many times over already.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoto put a finer point on it, 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan saw about ~60000 casualties. a little less then 1/3 of those casualties returned to duty. about ~6000 were killed, or roughly 1/10. by comparison Russia is on track to hit a million (1000000), by Summer 2025, with estimates of about 1/4 to 1/3 being "Cargo 200" (aka KIA). It's on track to exceed Iran-Iraq as most brutal conflict of the last 50 years -- and Iran-Iraq lasted most of the 1980s; this hasn't even been 3 full years yet.
- sedan_baklazhan 2y agoIt's really interesting: what are your estimations of Ukrainian losses? Of course, Afghanistan wasn't being armed and funded by 50 countries - and yet you failed there..
- pessimizer 2y ago[flagged]
- lpcvoid 2y agoAh yes, if we don't give the oppressed, attacked country which is fighting for its right to exist any weapons, the problem will go away faster. Evil NATO imperialists not allowing for russian brotherhood to be force fed to citizens of Ukraine!
- jacknews 2y agoExcept this will never happen with Putin in charge, or even many other replacements. So what to do?
- mdp2021 2y agoHow could that be unclear, and how could that be considered a fully processed idea? What are your assumptions, those that would enable a scenario in which the invader decided to retreat? It seems like a scenario that cannot just spawn from the current chessboard.
- martin_a 2y agoPutin could simply accept that he's made a mistake and order to stop fighting. I know it's unlikely because he's stupid or whatnot, but sane people reconsider what they do or have done and change based on that.
- madspindel 2y agoReminds me about that NATO joke: “What kind of war?” “Russia is fighting NATO.” “Are you serious?” “Yes, yes! Russia is fighting NATO.” “So how’s it going?” “Well, 70,000 Russian soldiers are dead. The missile stockpile has almost been depleted. A lot of equipment is damaged, blown up.” “And what about NATO?” “What about NATO? NATO hasn’t even arrived yet.”
- 9999px 2y agoUS and NATO personnel, equipment and cash have been in Ukraine for almost a decade now. Operation Sea Breeze couldn't have happened otherwise.
- red-iron-pine 2y agonot sure why this is downvoted, it's 100% correct. more specifically, a lot of NATO support following Euromaidan and "separatist" fighting 2014-2015. after a few black eyes fighting the Little Green Men, the AFU leaned hard on NATO assistance for training and armament. it's why the Ukrainians held out against Russia, and why Russia struggled so much -- they thought they were fighting the 2015 AFU, not the 2022 AFU.
- 2y ago
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y agoGiven that Ukraine has parts of Kursk, negotiations would be required, but I bet those would be pretty short if Russia offered a full return of the occupied territories. Which is very different from an unconditional surrender!
- martin_a 2y agoI think Ukraine would be open to talking about returning former Russian territory in case Russia accepts its defeat and returns all Ukrainian territory...
- romwell 2y agoWe don't need Russia to "accept defeat". We need, first and foremost, a guarantee that if the war stops today, that Russia will not launch an invasion for the third time in a few years. This war didn't start in 2022. They invaded in 2014, and "peace" was negotiated in Minsk. Worked out swimmingly. There are several ways we can get this guarantee: -A complete withdrawal and de-nuclearization of Russia, plus referendums held in Chechnya, Tatarstan, Syberia, Yakutia and other Moscow-controlled Republics in the Federation on whether the people there want to continue being a part on Moscow's imperial ambitions, or choose independence. Side note: Tatarstan had such a referendum in 1992. It would be great if its results were, at last, honored. Return of occupied territories is a means to an end. The end is peace. If Russia gets rewarded in any way for its invasion with acceptance of its territorial gains, they WILL do it again; the calculus is that simple. -Alternatively, NATO and EU membership and/or any sort of multilateral security agreement (not a promise) that would guarantee us boots-on-the-ground assistance in case of another invasion, backed by something more than a piece of paper. Say, NATO stations ammo depots, rockets, warplanes in Ukraine in sealed warehouses, and we promise not to take and use any of that stuff as long as NATO holds up to its own promises. -Ukraine develops nuclear weapons That's about all I can think of. Everything else has been tried before. The war started in 2014, and the invasion in 2022 took place after all the nuke-fearing pearl-clutchers suggested was already done. Funny thing, the only thing that makes Russia use nuclear weapons more likely is impunity, which is exactly what that sort of people is asking for. They are bringing their own doom, and are pulling us along with it. Trying to, in any case. We won't go. With or without them.
- 9999px 2y agoUS/NATO could do the same and get out of Ukraine to leave it neutral.
- mcphage 2y agoHow would that end the war?
- dragonwriter 2y agoUS/NATO weren’t in Ukraine when Russia started the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014, so I don’t think that would stop the Russian invasion.
- 9999px 2y agoInteresting flip of reality in that sentence.
- penguin_booze 2y ago> Simply give up and start retreating Not that fast. Pay for the damage, and hand over Herr Putler to try for war crimes.
- martin_a 2y agoTrue, true, but we could start with retreating Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. There will be time for everything else afterwards... ;-)