6 ms·

Yes, and I see the 8 year Iraq-Iran war as a sign of poor leadership on both sides. Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on f

Yes, and I see the 8 year Iraq-Iran war as a sign of poor leadership on both sides. Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour under his stewardship (especially as Ukraine has no real hope of winning the war). Stepping back from a conflict, even if the terms aren't ideal, shouldn't be considered a defeat (think like your enemy - the US never retreats, it only does "conflict management" when the odds are against it). Prioritise people's well-being over territory, over everything because without them you have no civilisation or culture to preserve. (India has fought many wars since independence, but never allowed any of it to drag on for years). All that said, I will concede that the current foes of Iran are irrational fanatics, and Iran has very difficult choices to make ...

froggy 2mo ago
> Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour What is he supposed to do? Give up and let the barbarians rape and plunder his nation? Would you want to live under Russian rule? Zelenskyy is doing exactly the right things. His short and long range strikes inside Russia are severely damaging the Russian economy and war machine. Russia has lost Ukrainian territory in their offensive this spring/summer, and Russian frontline soldiers are being killed and injured at a far higher rate than Ukrainian soldiers who are leaning on a millions-of-drones shield. If you want your continued freedom in whatever country you live in, you better be praying Ukraine defeats Russia. Your country may be next if not.
- thisislife2 2mo ago
  [dead]
fatbird 2mo ago
If Ukraine surrendered now, ceding occupied territories and perhaps giving up some extra in the Donbas, all that would happen is a pause that Russia desperately wants to rebuild and rearm, and return in a couple years (as it did in Chechnya and Georgia). There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees--far more than the empty promises they had before, meaning third party forces patrolling a DMZ. Until that happens, Zelensky and Ukrainians recognize that continuing to bleed Russia on the battlefield while building their capabilities and stressing Russia's economy is the only viable strategy. No conventional victory is possible for either side, it's a race between who collapses first, and in this, Ukraine is doing well: receiving aid from, and building relationships around the world. It was never an option for Zelensky to stop the war from dragging on. Thank God he recognized that.
- thisislife2 2mo ago
  > There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic. Ukraine ceded from the USSR under the specific guarantee to the Russians that they would remain a "permanently neutral" State that would not join any military alliance that was against Russia - Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine ( https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/ukrainian-independence-texts/ukrainian-state-sovereignty/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/uk... ) states: > The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to purchase nuclear weapons. The founding leaders of the Ukraine honoured that and this was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution - to be a neutral state that would not endanger Russian security. And under these leaders, Ukraine lived in peace. It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine. (Which is a completely natural political response). The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?
  - fatbird 2mo ago
    So the short version is: Russia felt threatened and invaded. It didn't do that for any of the Baltic states. It didn't do that when Finland aligned with NATO by joining the PfP in 1997, or joined NATO in 2023. All that had to happen was for Ukrainian leaders to say they wanted to join NATO, and that caused such a perception of undermined security that it demanded the extinction of Ukraine? How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO, and 1/3rd of Russian land-based nuclear weapons are within 400 km of that border. Sweden is also in NATO, so the Baltic sea is an all-NATO sea except for St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad. They have over a million casualties, lost more than half their tanks and AFVs, and are struggling to avoid general mobilization, all to occupy an area in Ukraine a little smaller than the state of Colorado--an area that is now completely in ruins. What remains of the Black Sea Fleet is in hiding in Novorossiysk, beaten by a country that has no navy. The Russian economy survives by selling deeply discounted crude oil to China and India, liquidating its gold reserves (73% gone to date), and drawing down its foreign currency reserves. In the Russia/China relationship, Russia is now the subordinate partner, dependent on China to buy its crude and sell it materials for its war effort (Khrushchev spins in his grave). Europe is rearming and cutting any remaining energy ties to Russia. Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Talk about idiocy.

froggy 2mo ago

> Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour What is he supposed to do? Give up and let the barbarians rape and plunder his nation? Would you want to live under Russian rule? Zelenskyy is doing exactly the right things. His short and long range strikes inside Russia are severely damaging the Russian economy and war machine. Russia has lost Ukrainian territory in their offensive this spring/summer, and Russian frontline soldiers are being killed and injured at a far higher rate than Ukrainian soldiers who are leaning on a millions-of-drones shield. If you want your continued freedom in whatever country you live in, you better be praying Ukraine defeats Russia. Your country may be next if not.

thisislife2 2mo ago
[dead]

fatbird 2mo ago

If Ukraine surrendered now, ceding occupied territories and perhaps giving up some extra in the Donbas, all that would happen is a pause that Russia desperately wants to rebuild and rearm, and return in a couple years (as it did in Chechnya and Georgia). There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees--far more than the empty promises they had before, meaning third party forces patrolling a DMZ. Until that happens, Zelensky and Ukrainians recognize that continuing to bleed Russia on the battlefield while building their capabilities and stressing Russia's economy is the only viable strategy. No conventional victory is possible for either side, it's a race between who collapses first, and in this, Ukraine is doing well: receiving aid from, and building relationships around the world. It was never an option for Zelensky to stop the war from dragging on. Thank God he recognized that.

thisislife2 2mo ago
> There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic. Ukraine ceded from the USSR under the specific guarantee to the Russians that they would remain a "permanently neutral" State that would not join any military alliance that was against Russia - Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine ( https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/ukrainian-independence-texts/ukrainian-state-sovereignty/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/uk... ) states: > The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to purchase nuclear weapons. The founding leaders of the Ukraine honoured that and this was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution - to be a neutral state that would not endanger Russian security. And under these leaders, Ukraine lived in peace. It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine. (Which is a completely natural political response). The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?
- fatbird 2mo ago
  So the short version is: Russia felt threatened and invaded. It didn't do that for any of the Baltic states. It didn't do that when Finland aligned with NATO by joining the PfP in 1997, or joined NATO in 2023. All that had to happen was for Ukrainian leaders to say they wanted to join NATO, and that caused such a perception of undermined security that it demanded the extinction of Ukraine? How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO, and 1/3rd of Russian land-based nuclear weapons are within 400 km of that border. Sweden is also in NATO, so the Baltic sea is an all-NATO sea except for St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad. They have over a million casualties, lost more than half their tanks and AFVs, and are struggling to avoid general mobilization, all to occupy an area in Ukraine a little smaller than the state of Colorado--an area that is now completely in ruins. What remains of the Black Sea Fleet is in hiding in Novorossiysk, beaten by a country that has no navy. The Russian economy survives by selling deeply discounted crude oil to China and India, liquidating its gold reserves (73% gone to date), and drawing down its foreign currency reserves. In the Russia/China relationship, Russia is now the subordinate partner, dependent on China to buy its crude and sell it materials for its war effort (Khrushchev spins in his grave). Europe is rearming and cutting any remaining energy ties to Russia. Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Talk about idiocy.