301–310 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia isn't part of USSR either. Source: am Russian
Putin wishes it still was.
He is thinking about the pre-Tsarist Russian Empire. Which included a few countries that were not in the USSR.
Here's my prediction: Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity. As it stands the West can do nothing. In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here). It seems to be that there's no way out…
I agree. I fear Ukraine will “win” when Russia retreats from the scorched, destroyed-to-rubble ruins of their nation.
Under the correct environment things can recover surprisingly fast.
Information from either side is to be taken with a grain of salt, although Ukraine is winning the social media ops-game hands down. I think since after the 1st week of troop movements it's pretty clear: - Russia aims at encircling cities, draining the resistance there, forcing them into negotiations and so that enemy combatants can evacuate into western Ukraine (like they did in Syria) - Ukraine aims at short-term lu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is going to have anything to do with Putin after launching a nuclear first strike because he'll be dead. Along with most of the population of Russia and a big chunk of the rest of the world too. And Putin knows this. Thus, it's a bluff.
Not necessarily. There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side. Lets say Putin nukes a carrier group at sea. This wont trigger an immediate counter attack like launching ICBMs would. Biden/whoever would have to order launching the nukes. Follow this for any usage of tactical nuclear weapons. Will he decide to end life in America and most of the wor…
I really doubt it. At the bare minimum a nuclear strike on military targets would provoke nuclear strikes on military targets in response. Excepting the middle of oceans, that's going to involve major civilian casualties. And then we're back to doomsday.
Not to get all Dr Strangelove on you, but once the nukes start flying there's really only one option - immediately take out as many of your enemy's weapons as possible. Sink all submarines, nuke all silos, hope for "no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cession of eastern territories and Crimea is probably not going to be too difficult a decision, considering Russia controls them anyways and did so even before the war. Demilitarization of Ukraine, NATO membership and relations with the west in general are all going to be very contentious, and it's hard to see a solution here that both sides will accept.
I don't see why NATO membership for Ukraine is so contentious, considering NATO has already made it crystal clear that they won't fight Russia directly over Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's really never been a scenario where Ukraine wins unconditionally. Russia has started backing off on their terms - it's not going well for them either. What makes a negotiated settlement very likely at this point is that Russia has started to make serious concessions and reduced their demands primarily to territorial claims.
"Russia has started to make serious concessions and reduced their demands primarily to territorial claims" Could you link to an article which shows a Russian official making such concessions or reducing their demands? From my own reading, Russia has just been reiterating the same demands they had all along: for Ukraine to recognize the breakaway republics and for Ukraine to give up hopes of ever joining NATO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why NATO membership for Ukraine is so contentious, considering NATO has already made it crystal clear that they won't fight Russia directly over Ukraine.
That changes if Ukraine becomes a treaty member. The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily.
That's what it means on paper. But we already see that in practice NATO is not willing to start WW3 to protect Ukraine.
Information from either side is to be taken with a grain of salt, although Ukraine is winning the social media ops-game hands down. I think since after the 1st week of troop movements it's pretty clear: - Russia aims at encircling cities, draining the resistance there, forcing them into negotiations and so that enemy combatants can evacuate into western Ukraine (like they did in Syria) - Ukraine aims at short-term lu…
100% this. I remember the USA's "Mission Accomplished" line/speech and the years of American propaganda that followed which said we were doing great things in the middle east. In reality we blew up a lot of people (soldiers and civilians), cities, and spent a shit load of money to accomplish what? I'm very skeptical of any news coming from either side currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Russia has started to make serious concessions and reduced their demands primarily to territorial claims" Could you link to an article which shows a Russian official making such concessions or reducing their demands? From my own reading, Russia has just been reiterating the same demands they had all along: for Ukraine to recognize the breakaway republics and for Ukraine to give up hopes of ever joining NATO.
"Demilitarization and denazification" was the justification for the war, and is really the only way their full war, which has been costly in many ways, makes sense. Pre-war negotiations with NATO included demands far wider than just Ukraine. There's a chance things are being misinterpreted in terms of wording, but it sounds like demilitarization has been softened and any agreement would involve accepting the existing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Putin was living on borrowed time due to the move away from fossil fuels and his main customers are now willing to pay more explictly not to use his exports" China will buy Russia's fossil fuels.
and as a monopsony they'll set the price