6 ms·

> I don't need to see much more evidence beyond what I've already seen to believe that there may well be an operation already planned In case of Ukraine there

• jacquesm 1y ago
  > In case of Ukraine there was at least plenty of strategic and political reasons. And all of them illegal. But never mind that, right? > Why Russia should attack any NATO country? Well, that's a good question but I'm the wrong person to ask. Clearly, sending a wave of drones into Poland is inviting some kind of response and unless you believe this was just for shits and giggles you too should be worried. Because if and when Russia decides that NATO is an alliance they'd like to go up against your position will rapidly become very difficult. Of course you are donating as much as you can to Ukraine to stop that from happening, right? > They were afraid even to respond to Turkey shooting down their planes. Yes. And that's because Turkey is part of NATO and because at that time there was no benefit to Putin from any escalation. But today there just might be. It does not have to be rational, if that were the case then Ukraine would have never been invaded in the first place. > Hypothetical land bridge to Kaliningrad? It is not completely isolated - there’s a railway connection still operating for example. Well, maybe, but the stakes are much higher here and Moscow and St.Petersburg will be on the line of fire. That railway connection is one of those little proof points that it isn't Poland, the EU or NATO that seems to be hell-bent on escalating this. It's not Poland that flies waves of drones into Russia. > Do you see any plausible strategy communicated and executed by the West on how this war can end on favorable terms for Ukraine? I don’t. I do. Because with every passing day Russia is getting weaker to the point that even the most die-hard Putin supporters are going to have to question whether or not they are better off with or without him. True, that may not happen tomorrow. But dictators like Putin don't go quietly, they go out with a bang. The question is more one of how large of a bang it will be, and how many more people he wants to take with him into his grave. But his legacy will forever be the little man that overstepped his boundaries, not the person that brought Russia back to greatness. > Russia is making steady gains in territory over quite long period of time now and is on track to achieve it’s current military goals that were outlined in their peace proposal (full control of Donbas and land bridge securing logistics for Crimea). Yes, sure, 'steady gains' at absolutely massive expense of territory that will never be recognized and which eventually will be given back. That's where this will end. There is no way the developed world will recognize the gains during this war as legitimate. > It’s hard to understand what are you talking about. Maybe that is because you don't want to understand? How hard is it to understand that the days of gaining ground by conquest in Europe are - as far as the rest of Europe is concerned - over. And that any attempt to revive that sentiment is going to be met with resistance? Merkel got it wrong, we know that much now. So that changes the equation considerably. > You literally told that in previous comment, dismissing the understanding of differences as unimportant. Yes, I'm trying to get you to understand that the Russian point-of-view in this whole discussion is utterly irrelevant, we're talking about the victims, not about the aggressors and I honestly don't give a fuck about what justification Russia feels it needs to do whatever it is that it is doing: it is wrong. And you are perfectly positioned to see that it is wrong. > What makes you think that I’m less informed and understand it less than you? Just the fact that I disagree? The fact that in spite of living in the West you seem to insist on carrying water for Putin and company. That makes you a liability rather than an asset. If that's not your position now would be an excellent time to correct the record. There is no way that you can legitimize the Russian aggression against Ukraine, it doesn't matter if Russia wins territory or not, it doesn't matter whether Russia ends up victorious or not. What matters is that they are the aggressors and that they are wrong in doing so. What matters is that they indiscriminately bomb civilians. What matters is that even Russians living abroad who could know better are still somehow closing their eyes to the truth: Russia was wrong to start this war, Russia is wrong to continue this war and Russia is making a massive miscalculation about the degree of resolve in other countries about this.
  • ivan_gammel 1y ago
    This reminds me of American voting on Gaza resolutions in UN. Apparently I have not condemned Putin enough and must be helping him, just because I say that further military escalation leads nowhere. What a nonsense. But if you wish so, I do fully agree that Russia was wrong to start this war and Russia is wrong to continue this war. As for resolve, time will tell. I don’t see a lot of resolve now in practice. > There is no way that you can legitimize the Russian aggression against Ukraine I did not legitimize the Russian aggression. Understanding the logic and legitimizing are not synonymous. Whether the reasons were legal or not, it doesn’t change the fact that they serve as a basis for starting negotiating position. > I'm trying to get you to understand that the Russian point-of-view in this whole discussion is utterly irrelevant If it’s irrelevant to you, this is fine. It’s absolutely relevant to EU foreign policy and the negotiations and as such worth talking about, because it may actually save lives. I understand the direction of this conversation, so maybe it doesn’t make sense to continue. We are looking at it from very different angles and while agreeing in principle that the war is bad, have very different perspectives on the future of it. Time will tell who is right.
    • jacquesm 1y ago
      > just because I say that further military escalation leads nowhere. Yes, but only the russian side is escalating. And seems to want to escalate much further still. > But if you wish so, I do fully agree that Russia was wrong to start this war and Russia is wrong to continue this war. Good. Thank you for clearing that up. > As for resolve, time will tell. I don’t see a lot of resolve now in practice. There are a lot of Ukrainians dying every day and it is certainly not their fault that this is so. Only russia can stop this war, the alternatives that Ukraine has are to capitulate, be roped into russia's armed forces and to see their people further murdered and used, just like what russia is doing to the other parties that they've roped into this fight. So if you want the EU and Ukraine to stop this you are barking up the wrong tree, they do not have agency other than to give up and that isn't going to happen. > I did not legitimize the Russian aggression. Understanding the logic and legitimizing are not synonymous. Whether the reasons were legal or not, it doesn’t change the fact that they serve as a basis for starting negotiating position. No, they do not. A negotiation position is only believable if the parties in the negotiations have previously shown that they can be trusted. Russia has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they can not be trusted and that if there is any kind of peace agreement it will just be used to re-arm and try again from a stronger position. > If it’s irrelevant to you, this is fine. It’s absolutely relevant to EU foreign policy and the negotiations and as such worth talking about, because it may actually save lives. It won't save lives in the longer term. The only thing that will save lives in the longer term is the ultimate defeat of russia a-la Germany and to take away their nuclear toys. Then they can figure out at what point they want to re-join the developed world, it is clear that as long as they can hide behind their nukes that they will keep trying to expand their territory at the expense of their neighbors. > I understand the direction of this conversation, so maybe it doesn’t make sense to continue. We are looking at it from very different angles and while agreeing in principle that the war is bad, have very different perspectives on the future of it. Time will tell who is right. The idea that there is a 'right' here in itself is one that I disagree with, and if you are truthful in that you believe that this war should have never started then you already know the answer to what really is right. But that's not a future that I think is viable with the current russian leadership, they've decided that their own wealth is more important than the lives of their citizenry. It will take a sea change for that to no longer be the case and I don't have much hope that the tide will turn. But maybe it will.
• nradov 1y ago
  The strategy on how this war can end on favorable terms for Ukraine is the same as most other wars of attrition: kill more Russians steadily over a period of several more years. Their population is large but not infinite. With a sufficient arsenal of advanced weapons from allied countries this is potentially achievable. This is a horrible situation and I take no delight in it but now millions of Russians will have to die to resolve a problem caused by their leaders. The other strategy is to cut off Russia's war funding through a combination of sanctions and (more importantly) Ukrainian long-range strikes on fossil fuel export infrastructure. This is more of a long shot but it could work.
  • ivan_gammel 1y ago
    In an attrition war where Ukraine has less than 30M people (25% population decline since start of war) and Russia has around 140M, who do you think can win? What advanced weapons and in which volume can West supply that can change the course of war given population constraints?