Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Edge-]

Even if Putin wanted to invade for another reason just like everyone mentions here, going all out with NATO, certainly gave him the perfect excuse to do what he did.

No, it didn't. What does "going all out with NATO" even mean?

If your neighbor buys a rottweiler that barks and then he tells you that it doesn't bite, it just wants to play, I suppose you won't take measures for it right until you get eaten?

Why does your neighbor feel the need to get a rottweiler (great dogs btw) to protect themselves from you to begin with? You're skipping a step.

If someone came and tell you that you should leave your home if you prefer Russia over west influence, would you just accept because a paper or a law says so especially when you have been there forever and fought many wars to keep your home and lifestyle?

That's for Ukraine to deal with. As noted, the Minsk treaty is voided by Putin's own words.

The logical move from Ukraine's part would be to attempt to join NATO and go all out with the west if they had enough power to stomp Russia's invasion. I never said that they don't have the right to make the decisions that they did however these decisions are wrong when they lack the power to handle what's coming.

What does this even mean? If Russia doesn't invade there's no conflict, really. And they made the wrong decisions? I guess if you're a pro-Putin/Russia stan that's a position. Are you?

Either way, we will see how this will end up, it may still go favorably for Ukraine and pull a win but it looks very hard for them right now.

They're still doing remarkably well all things considered. Even if they ultimately lose they've absolutely humiliated the Russian military, and Wagner is no no longer a thing.

[Biglog]

Well the last year and a half have proven that Russia has zero chance against NATO in any sort of tactical war. That would not end well for Russia. Even the most stalwart propagandists realize this now. So they go quickly to 'we could just nuke them', which is equally delusional since like most of the northern hemisphere, Russia too would be left an uninhabitable apocalyptic wasteland.

So with that in mind and being more realistic, there are really only 2 'winning' exit strategies for Russia. 1) (their primary hope) that a political change in the West alters their military support for Ukraine significantly enough to make the war winnable, or 2) a very long war of attrition that Russia could maybe eventually win with endless waves of cannon fodder, but may outlast Putin if it drags on for many years. And it's probably no coincidence that reports of attacks on recruiting offices in Russia are increasing as the war slogs on. Vietnam wasn't too popular in the US either after a few years of military funerals.

[Twdft]

If that fate creates a dangerous situation for someone else then they should be ready for the consequences. I never said they shouldn't do it but I don't think the outcome should be considered strange. Even if Putin wanted to invade for another reason just like everyone mentions here, going all out with NATO, certainly gave him the perfect excuse to do what he did.

If your neighbor buys a rottweiler that barks and then he tells you that it doesn't bite, it just wants to play, I suppose you won't take measures for it right until you get eaten?

If someone came and tell you that you should leave your home if you prefer Russia over west influence, would you just accept because a paper or a law says so especially when you have been there forever and fought many wars to keep your home and lifestyle?

Logic is a more important decision making tool than laws and papers but none seems to like it.

The logical move from Ukraine's part would be to attempt to join NATO and go all out with the west if they had enough power to stomp Russia's invasion. I never said that they don't have the right to make the decisions that they did however these decisions are wrong when they lack the power to handle what's coming.

Either way, we will see how this will end up, it may still go favorably for Ukraine and pull a win but it looks very hard for them right now.

That was a yes or no question. You not being able to give a simple answer to that simple question is quite sad, really. Have a nice day.

[Egomaniac]

If your neighbor buys a rottweiler that barks and then he tells you that it doesn't bite, it just wants to play, I suppose you won't take measures for it right until you get eaten?

I might take measures to protect myself. I won't just decide to shoot his dog before it gets a chance to bite me though.

[DarkTZeratul]

So with that in mind and being more realistic, there are really only 2 'winning' exit strategies for Russia. 1) (their primary hope) that a political change in the West alters their military support for Ukraine significantly enough to make the war winnable, or 2) a very long war of attrition that Russia could maybe eventually win with endless waves of cannon fodder, but may outlast Putin if it drags on for many years. And it's probably no coincidence that reports of attacks on recruiting offices in Russia are increasing as the war slogs on. Vietnam wasn't too popular in the US either after a few years of military funerals.

I mean, in theory, they have a 3rd option. Leave Ukraine and declare "victory" on the grounds of whatever made-up bullshit they come up with as a justification.

[Logwyn]

Well the last year and a half have proven that Russia has zero chance against NATO in any sort of tactical war.

I'm not sure Russa was ever able to beat NATO in a tactical war since the USSR broke up.

[YUPPIE]

Russians can't retreat into Russia and declare a false victory. They're in way too deep now.

[Corvus]

So with that in mind and being more realistic, there are really only 2 'winning' exit strategies for Russia. 1) (their primary hope) that a political change in the West alters their military support for Ukraine significantly enough to make the war winnable, or 2) a very long war of attrition that Russia could maybe eventually win with endless waves of cannon fodder, but may outlast Putin if it drags on for many years. And it's probably no coincidence that reports of attacks on recruiting offices in Russia are increasing as the war slogs on. Vietnam wasn't too popular in the US either after a few years of military funerals.

When was the last time russia won a war of attrition when they were being massively supplied and funded by the west?

[Jastall]

Russia already had all of this during Poroshenko and it didn't invade, they had no reason to invade. It amassed troops on 2020 I think but removed them, why it didn't invade then?

Also, do the people from donbas and crimea matter at all? why are they so overwhelmingly on the side of Russia? why do these places managed to win autonomy? I don't think Russian militias alone could do that, the land is way too big for this. Donbass alone is almost the size of my country.

and now I ask you, isn't this a major political failure on Ukraine's part? please don't tell me that Ukraine should do whatever it wants with its lands and people. Think with logic for once. What will exactly Ukraine will liberate? I really wonder, I was reading news from a neutral or pro Ukraine site and they even mentioned that some of the population there tried to poison the ukraine troops.

Likely because they weren't ready, given how botched the 2022 operation was even after a lot of preparation.

The people matter, but Russia doesn't care about any of that. It would have seized Crimea and the Donbass even if they were pro-Ukraine, much like it tried to seize, you know, all the parts of Ukraine that were pro-Ukraine. The fact that those places are more pro-Russia makes them easier for Russia to take and hold, it doesn't mean one nation should march armies into their neighbor's territories and decide it's theirs now. And sham referendums held by invading armies should be ridiculed as the farce they are.

If you think that it's OK to invade a sovereign nation's territory and seize it because you think the locals would be more loyal to you, then holy shit do you open one massive can of worms, one that China for example would be very interested in RE Russia's southeastern's borders.

Your "logic" is that Ukraine should simply bow to any demands Russia makes to appease them. I doubt that's a sound one because appeasement doesn't work when the demands are so one-sided.

Besides which, your arguments are all over the place. You go from NATO bad to Ukraine should simply accept it's not a sovereign country to what about the people of Crimea at a whim. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make besides showing you know better than others.

[Veggie50]

Likely because they weren't ready, given how botched the 2022 operation was even after a lot of preparation.

The people matter, but Russia doesn't care about any of that. It would have seized Crimea and the Donbass even if they were pro-Ukraine, much like it tried to seize, you know, all the parts of Ukraine that were pro-Ukraine. The fact that those places are more pro-Russia makes them easier for Russia to take and hold, it doesn't mean one nation should march armies into their neighbor's territories and decide it's theirs now. And sham referendums held by invading armies should be ridiculed as the farce they are.

If you think that it's OK to invade a sovereign nation's territory and seize it because you think the locals would be more loyal to you, then holy shit do you open one massive can of worms, one that China for example would be very interested in RE Russia's southeastern's borders.

Your "logic" is that Ukraine should simply bow to any demands Russia makes to appease them. I doubt that's a sound one because appeasement doesn't work when the demands are so one-sided.

Besides which, your arguments are all over the place. You go from NATO bad to Ukraine should simply accept it's not a sovereign country to what about the people of Crimea at a whim. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make besides showing you know better than others.

He’s just blatantly touting Putin’s narrative. Would not be surprised if there’s a kremlin provided financial insentive.

[Gabriel]

Well the last year and a half have proven that Russia has zero chance against NATO in any sort of tactical war. That would not end well for Russia. Even the most stalwart propagandists realize this now. So they go quickly to 'we could just nuke them', which is equally delusional since like most of the northern hemisphere, Russia too would be left an uninhabitable apocalyptic wasteland.

So with that in mind and being more realistic, there are really only 2 'winning' exit strategies for Russia. 1) (their primary hope) that a political change in the West alters their military support for Ukraine significantly enough to make the war winnable, or 2) a very long war of attrition that Russia could maybe eventually win with endless waves of cannon fodder, but may outlast Putin if it drags on for many years. And it's probably no coincidence that reports of attacks on recruiting offices in Russia are increasing as the war slogs on. Vietnam wasn't too popular in the US either after a few years of military funerals.

No. The worst part about nuclear war for the majority of humans is still having to go to work in the morning after, now just with 10% more chance of getting a cancer.

[draynay]

If your neighbor buys a rottweiler that barks and then he tells you that it doesn't bite, it just wants to play, I suppose you won't take measures for it right until you get eaten?

the fuck did I just read?

[DarkTZeratul]

the fuck did I just read?

Someone who apparently thinks it's okay to preemptively kill your neighbor's dog just in case it might bite you, I think?

[Forogil]

If your neighbor buys a rottweiler that barks and then he tells you that it doesn't bite, it just wants to play, I suppose you won't take measures for it right until you get eaten?

If this is an analogy with Russia: you are sort of glossing over that you have a kennel of mistreated and undernourished dogs you call "babykillers", their dog-poop was found where a bird was found dead next to the cathedral, you have repeatedly moved the fence to increase your yard, and you says that since your ancestor owned the valley you have the right to all of it.

That's why your neighbors are getting dogs.

[Vampiregenesis]

If Russia managed to create such complex and extended fortification to the point where not even their first line of defense can be reached, I can only imagine that they prepared for a nuclear war scenario too and they mined the nuclear factory of Zaporizhya as well. How can you beat this?

The only scenario that makes sense now is that of the frozen conflict, this push is meant to mostly boost the Ukrainians psychologically for a while rather than achieve any meaningful result, after one year the US and west will disengage from this war and stop aiding Ukraine and then Ukrainians will be like "well it didn't work out but at least we tried" lets just keep living with whatever we have left. The occupied lands will not be recognized and I guess there will be some sort of ceasefire, it will just be the continuation of minsk.

It's not like Ukraine is the only place where things such as this occurs, you can see the Cyprus example about how these things end up, there are several places out that are occupied by a foreign country.

The only scenario where Ukraine might actually get away with all of its lands is one where Putin dies before the war ends and is replaced by someone who is not willing to continue this.

Putin not getting everything might still be seen as a victory against tyranny from the West, I think west will not try to do more than they do now.

[Iphie]

No. The worst part about nuclear war for the majority of humans is still having to go to work in the morning after, now just with 10% more chance of getting a cancer.

Fuck me if that's not the most Finnish take I've seen in ages.

[Forogil]

If Russia managed to create such complex and extended fortification to the point where not even their first line of defense can be reached,

You mean "only the first line of defense has been breached in parts so far". Obviously the first lines, and second lines of defense can be reached with artillery.

IPutin not getting everything might still be seen as a victory against tyranny from the West, I think west will not try to do more than they do now.

How do you define tyranny so that "the West" is seen as tyrannical, but Russia's dictatorship and planned genocide isn't?

[Vampiregenesis]

You mean "only the first line of defense has been breached in parts so far". Obviously the first lines, and second lines of defense can be reached with artillery.


How do you define tyranny so that "the West" is seen as tyrannical, but Russia's dictatorship and planned genocide isn't?

you misunderstood me, I meant West will view this as victory against Putin's tyranny which is supposed to be the reason they help Ukraine, to give a lesson to china.

[Shadowferal]

If Russia managed to create such complex and extended fortification to the point where not even their first line of defense can be reached, I can only imagine that they prepared for a nuclear war scenario too and they mined the nuclear factory of Zaporizhya as well. How can you beat this?

Words in bold.

The only scenario that makes sense now is that of the frozen conflict, this push is meant to mostly boost the Ukrainians psychologically for a while rather than achieve any meaningful result

Hate to break it to you but Ukraine has resisted for well over a year. NATO is adding new members and plenty of countries are united with Ukraine. Russia on the ither hand has been revealed as inept, reckless, weak, especially in regards of its resources affecting morale which saw many Russian soldiers surrender just for the sake of a good meal.
Seems to me we've plenty of meaningful results.

[Corvus]

The frozen conflict scenario is only being pushed by pro-russian groups as they are desperate for it. Ukraine is making progress but have decided slower is better rather that the russian tactic of throwing huge numbers away in futile attacks. They are being methodical about it. On top of that russia has decided on a policy of hold at all cost, even if it makes no sense and is in front of those defensive lines they have built.

Case in point is Urozhaine that fell the other day. This is a good read up of it, but the short of the story is that after Ukraine encircled it on three sides, and with the high ground, russia didn't do the sensible thing of pulling back. Instead they counter attacked, uphill, and then sent in their reserves to try and hold it. The Ukrainians could have taken it sooner, but decided that since russia was feeding its units into a very bad situation they'd take advantage of that and spend the next 2 weeks mercilessly shelling the russians. When they launched a pincer movement 2 weeks later, the russians broke and ran, on foot, in daylight, under artillery fire, leaving all their gear behind.

Ukraine could have taken it sooner but opted not to as russia's crazy strategy let them destroy far more of the enemy that way. Never interrupt an enemy making a mistake.

Back to the economy - after the rubble began to fall yesterday, the russian central bank announced they will have an emergency meeting to address it It allowed the ruble to recover a bit, to where it was a week ago, because it is widely expected that they will hike interests rates to try and shore up the rubble, perhaps as high as a full 1% rise, with further expectations it will climb higher, to over 10% before the year is over. It may stop the bleeding but that just shifts the pain to a different part of the economy.

And, despite their being a war going on and the Kremlin throwing buckets of rubles at them, numerous military enterprises are declaring bankruptcy. Part of the problem is that pootie has made it illegal to fail to live up to an order placed for goods, but with rising costs on important, many are running at a loss and finding it far better to declare bankruptcy than to face the charges. Not exactly the smartest way to run an economy.