Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Wilian]

What "strategic interests" is supporting Ukraine fostering, beyond Ukraine surviving as a nation?

We in the countries bordering Russia are under no delusion that would Russia win in Ukraine that they'd just stop there. It's in our strategic best interest to aid Ukraine into victory because it's already obvious that would they fall, then it'd be Moldova next, it's being staged for operations from the two Russian colonies within it already. Russian population as a whole, in terms of economy and culturally is prepared for a war against both Baltics and us in Finland. In Finland Russia has made decades of preparations for potential invasion which we only in recent decades have caught up to, to prevent.

West have already proven it's limp dicked with it's response in Ukraine, thoroughly so and only message we have given out is that Russia doesn't even need to apply "red lines" because we are more than willing to do so on ourselves. While NATO is for the moment "hisorically united" we have rats like Hungary in it and here in the long border with Russia we know they might probably at some point try some sort of small operation, significant enough to count but "insignificant enough" for NATO to respond to avoid greater war and about all military experts agree on that notion.

For us, keeping Ukraine in the game is not merely interest of their survival as a nation even if that is one of the key points but also to prevent escalation against us. That is why on average, per capita we are aiding Ukraine way above our economic weight, in some cases 2-4x vs. any of the larger providers. That is why we are far more open about talking sending troops directly to Ukraine.

[DarkTZeratul]

The reality is that this is a West vs Russia tussle. Ukraine is an unfortunate bone for Russia to gnaw on here.

Bullshit. It's entirely a Russia vs. Ukraine tussle. Ukraine isn't "an unfortunate bone for Russia to gnaw on," it's their entire goal. They want to annex Ukraine. Full stop. That western aid has helped Ukraine resist that doesn't make it a proxy war between the west and Russia.

When the settlement will come the signatories may be Ukraine and Russia, but in reality, it will be West and Russia who will hammer the terms between themselves and Ukraine will have to swallow it and agree

I don't buy this for a moment. "The West" won't be hammering out terms with Russia, because "the West" isn't a belligerant in the conflict (besides which "the West" is not a real faction, political or otherwise, beyond being a holdover term from the Cold War). The US and the EU don't seem at all interested in dictating terms beyond supporting what Ukraine wants. Any terms that Ukraine will "have to swallow and agree to" would effectively amount to a conditional Ukrainian surrender.

Just like in Russian agencies orchestrating this whole thing nobody really thinks Ukraine is full of Nazis and they do this because they need to protect poor Russian speaking populace from neo-Nazi atrocities fable, in the same fashion nobody in the State Department or whoever it is supports Ukraine because they just love their self-determination aspirations.

While you're not entirely wrong here (obviously the US and the EU are not entirely altruisitic in their support, geopolitics being what they are the supporting nations are all acting out of self-interest to some degree or another), insisting that it's a proxy war and it's really "the West" fighting Russia does nothing but play into Russian propaganda and reduces Ukraine from defending against an unprovoked attack to simply a pawn in a broader war that has no real agency of its own. It's inaccurate, it's demeaning to Ukraine, and it serves only to give validation to Russia's post-hoc justification of protecting themselves against NATO.

[Gaidax]

I never said said they can't do it, I said I do not believe they can, see the difference ?

The person in question just looks for some weird gotchas, quite apparent from this quote:

I'll show you the contextual difference.

"Ukraine has and had serious issues with corruption and they need to work on it to join the EU." -this is how you address the issue of corruption without reciting Russian talking points.

"Ukraine is a corrupt country and they don't belong in the EU" -this is Russian propaganda.

That's pretty much nitpicking at finest, as it is a purely subjective take of the self-proclaimed judge of what Russian propaganda is or is not.

The main point - Ukraine is a corrupt country and that's how it is and there is little point to lawyer speak around that fact. If someone says it bluntly and does not pass your personal judgmental barometer of what is nice or not, it does not mean that said someone is a secret KGB agent.

So for people like this, it's best to just ignore and move on - there is no point fighting bad faith posters all day long.

- - - Updated - - -

Bullshit. It's entirely a Russia vs. Ukraine tussle. Ukraine isn't "an unfortunate bone for Russia to gnaw on," it's their entire goal. They want to annex Ukraine. Full stop. That western aid has helped Ukraine resist that doesn't make it a proxy war between the west and Russia.

You really think Russia is doing this bullshit just for Ukraine? Really?

It's just a stepping stone for them in their plans, that they fumbled the fuck out of that step does not change the fact that the end goal is USSR and confrontation with the West for their "bipolar world" vision of the world.

This is MUCH bigger than just Ukraine.

I don't buy this for a moment. "The West" won't be hammering out terms with Russia, because "the West" isn't a belligerant in the conflict (besides which "the West" is not a real faction, political or otherwise, beyond being a holdover term from the Cold War). The US and the EU don't seem at all interested in dictating terms beyond supporting what Ukraine wants. Any terms that Ukraine will "have to swallow and agree" will effectively amount to a conditional Ukrainian surrender.

As if the exact same thing did not happen 10 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_...eonid%20Kuchma

The signatories may be Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists that time around, but the plan was put forward by a European delegation and Ukraine was forced to agree to it due to circumstances. And hell, let's be real for a hot sec: those "separatists" wouldn't wipe their butts after taking a dump without greenlighting that with Kremlin, so so much for "signatories" there.

Saying that the same thing can't happen again is ignoring literal history of the conflict.

While you're not entirely wrong here (obviously the US and the EU are not entirely altruisitic in their support, geopolitics being what they are the supporting nations are all acting out of self-interest to some degree or another), insisting that it's a proxy war and it's really "the West" fighting Russia does nothing but play into Russian propaganda and reduces Ukraine from defending against an unprovoked attack to simply a pawn in a broader war that has no real agency of its own. It's inaccurate, it's demeaning to Ukraine, and it serves only to give validation to Russia's post-hoc justification of protecting themselves against NATO.

So, I am "not entirely wrong here".

See that's the main thing here. The subjective what plays into what does not interest me, I am not going to be denying reality here for feelings.

Everything that ever posted here can be tied to this propaganda or that propaganda, I'm not interested tiptoeing around that bullshit. Real things are real (hence "not entirely wrong part") and fake things are fake.

[Jastall]

You really think Russia is doing this bullshit just for Ukraine? Really?

It's just a stepping stone for them in their plans, that they fumbled the fuck out of that step does not change the fact that the end goal is USSR and confrontation with the West for their "bipolar world" vision of the world.

This is MUCH bigger than just Ukraine.

It's not just about Ukraine, but I also don't think Russia wants a full-on confrontation with the West, at least not outside of the cartoonishly insane Call of Duty-esque ultranationalists that actually think they can take on NATO and win. There are far, far too many risks involved. They want to expand their sphere of influence as much as they can, for political, geopolitical and economic reasons, and are pushing as much as they can get away with. Ukraine is a step in this plan, but a quite important step, pretty much the most important country for them that is outside of NATO. Being slowed down so much by them certainly puts a hell of a damper on their greater ambitions. If they can't take half of Ukraine using mothballed and out of date NATO gear then they sure can't take actual NATO gear and manpower anytime this century.

They'll rely on being second fiddle to China. Who knows what'll happen with Taiwan on that front, but on that I also don't predict actual action anytime soon. Any actual aggression on China's part there immediately sends the global economy on a screeching downward spiral that includes them in a front row seat and promises untold risks when it comes to American intervention.

[Gaidax]

It's not just about Ukraine, but I also don't think Russia wants a full-on confrontation with the West, at least not outside of the cartoonishly insane Call of Duty-esque ultranationalists that actually think they can take on NATO and win. There are far, far too many risks involved. They want to expand their sphere of influence as much as they can, for political, geopolitical and economic reasons, and are pushing as much as they can get away with. Ukraine is a step in this plan, but a quite important step, pretty much the most important country for them that is outside of NATO. Being slowed down so much by them certainly puts a hell of a damper on their greater ambitions. If they can't take half of Ukraine using mothballed and out of date NATO gear then they sure can't take actual NATO gear and manpower anytime this century.

They'll rely on being second fiddle to China. Who knows what'll happen with Taiwan on that front, but on that I also don't predict actual action anytime soon. Any actual aggression on China's part there immediately sends the global economy on a screeching downward spiral that includes them in a front row seat and promises untold risks when it comes to American intervention.

For sure, what Russia wants is practically what Putin drops here and there - to split the world in two, the West and then the whatever the other side is called with China, Russia aligning with various other states.

Russia now has no choice but to go for a constant cold war-like confrontation with the West, the bridges are well burned there.

Russia would want to nab the ex-Soviet republics, while China has its own ambitions and they work together on this. For now Russia does not mind playing a role of China's bitch, because they know their place. Their goals of creating a major counter to the West align for now.

I, personally, think that Taiwan is only the matter of time and I'm very skeptic about its chances there. Global economy is always a concern... until it isn't - after all we had 2 world wars that for sure were bad for global economy for all parties involved. I prefer to not live in delusion that the third one won't happen because economy.

[NED funded]

Bullshit. It's entirely a Russia vs. Ukraine tussle. Ukraine isn't "an unfortunate bone for Russia to gnaw on," it's their entire goal. They want to annex Ukraine. Full stop. That western aid has helped Ukraine resist that doesn't make it a proxy war between the west and Russia.

I don't buy this for a moment. "The West" won't be hammering out terms with Russia, because "the West" isn't a belligerant in the conflict (besides which "the West" is not a real faction, political or otherwise, beyond being a holdover term from the Cold War). The US and the EU don't seem at all interested in dictating terms beyond supporting what Ukraine wants. Any terms that Ukraine will "have to swallow and agree to" would effectively amount to a conditional Ukrainian surrender.

While you're not entirely wrong here (obviously the US and the EU are not entirely altruisitic in their support, geopolitics being what they are the supporting nations are all acting out of self-interest to some degree or another), insisting that it's a proxy war and it's really "the West" fighting Russia does nothing but play into Russian propaganda and reduces Ukraine from defending against an unprovoked attack to simply a pawn in a broader war that has no real agency of its own. It's inaccurate, it's demeaning to Ukraine, and it serves only to give validation to Russia's post-hoc justification of protecting themselves against NATO.

Russia doesnt want to annex Ukraine. The war devolved into actual territorial annexation after Russia failed on all of their objectives in the war. The original plan was to crash in Kyev, take out Zelenski and install a puppet leader. Its not the full on annexation its been doing right now but control by proxy. The same tactic it has used on its neighbors to force obedience. Putin wants to revive the imperial USSR of old, he has literally said as much.

- - - Updated - - -

The funny aspect of this conflict is that Zelensky's biggest crime is not that he sought a reproachment to the EU and US. Those hopes died in 2014 and more so after the US didnt send military aid to Ukraine when Russia invaded the donbas and luhensk regions. Zelensky's crime is that he wasnt subsirvient enough towards Putin.

[Jastall]

For sure, what Russia wants is practically what Putin drops here and there - to split the world in two, the West and then the whatever the other side is called with China, Russia aligning with various other states.

Russia now has no choice but to go for a constant cold war-like confrontation with the West, the bridges are well burned there.

Russia would want to nab the ex-Soviet republics, while China has its own ambitions and they work together on this. For now Russia does not mind playing a role of China's bitch, because they know their place. Their goals of creating a major counter to the West align for now.

I, personally, think that Taiwan is only the matter of time and I'm very skeptic about its chances there. Global economy is always a concern... until it isn't - after all we had 2 world wars that for sure were bad for global economy for all parties involved. I prefer to not live in delusion that the third one won't happen because economy.

The economies of the belligerents of both the other wars weren't anywhere near as intertwined as China's is with the West. Russia is a closer example- sure, not getting their gas sucked for Europe for a while, but they found other sources and Russia found other buyers, even if both parties are arguably worse off for it. It's a relationship you can decouple.

China merely, say, blockading Taiwan crashes the entire semiconductor market, if not overnight then certainly in short order. Which crashes the entire global economy with it, and China is extremely connected to that economy, it heavily relies on the West, among other places, buying its shit and relies on Taiwan for the vast majority of its advanced technological needs just as much as the USA or France or whatever. They can't replace that by offloading their stuff to India or South Africa or whatever, those markets just aren't nearly as developed. And they know that any assault on Taiwan more than likely means they aren't capturing any of those fabs, even assuming they aren't damaged or destroyed in the fighting- which would be a nightmare to repair even if it is even possible- I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if the Taiwanese and/or Americans sabotage the hell out of them. Those are easily some of the most economically and strategically important facilities on the entire planet. They won't be just surrendered meekly.

Also, at the risk of sounding like some other poster, let us not forget nukes. That's another, very major barrier to direct conflict between major powers. The risk is just too goddamn great. The USSR and USA were far stauncher enemies that any of the present forces are and yet still cooler heads always prevailed and knew that nuclear confrontation is unthinkable. No possible wargoal is worth the high risk of having your cities glassed and country collapse, no matter how many of the other bastards you kill in return.

I hope I'm right, at least. I hope China understands it stands to lose far too much if they fuck around too much. And same for Russia, who are the point of the thread. Belligerent adventures can only net you so much before you find out the cost, that's a pretty consistent lesson in history when it comes to dictators believing they can just take over Europe or whatnot.

[Gaidax]

The economies of the belligerents of both the other wars weren't anywhere near as intertwined as China's is with the West. Russia is a closer example- sure, not getting their gas sucked for Europe for a while, but they found other sources and Russia found other buyers, even if both parties are arguably worse off for it. It's a relationship you can decouple.

China merely, say, blockading Taiwan crashes the entire semiconductor market, if not overnight then certainly in short order. Which crashes the entire global economy with it, and China is extremely connected to that economy, it heavily relies on the West, among other places, buying its shit and relies on Taiwan for the vast majority of its advanced technological needs just as much as the USA or France or whatever. They can't replace that by offloading their stuff to India or South Africa or whatever, those markets just aren't nearly as developed. And they know that any assault on Taiwan more than likely means they aren't capturing any of those fabs, even assuming they aren't damaged or destroyed in the fighting- which would be a nightmare to repair even if it is even possible- I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if the Taiwanese and/or Americans sabotage the hell out of them. Those are easily some of the most economically and strategically important facilities on the entire planet. They won't be just surrendered meekly.

Also, at the risk of sounding like some other poster, let us not forget nukes. That's another, very major barrier to direct conflict between major powers. The risk is just too goddamn great. The USSR and USA were far stauncher enemies that any of the present forces are and yet still cooler heads always prevailed and knew that nuclear confrontation is unthinkable. No possible wargoal is worth the high risk of having your cities glassed and country collapse, no matter how many of the other bastards you kill in return.

I hope I'm right, at least. I hope China understands it stands to lose far too much if they fuck around too much. And same for Russia, who are the point of the thread. Belligerent adventures can only net you so much before you find out the cost, that's a pretty consistent lesson in history when it comes to dictators believing they can just take over Europe or whatnot.

I do wish to remind you that the Great Depression, among other things led to rise of Hitler and eventual WW2. Germany of 20s was too very dependent on US as far as economy went, until that collapsed and resulted in the outcome above.

In other words, what you see now is not necessarily the case 5 or 10 years from now. China is not going to stay restrained by economical ties with the West forever and they are working overtime to on that part.

They have voiced their aims in their region many times and I think people need to listen, but that's kind of off topic already.

---

P.S. Nobody going to be launching any nukes over Taiwan. I don't know how that shitshow will turn out, but that one is certain.

[NED funded]

The person in question just looks for some weird gotchas, quite apparent from this quote:



That's pretty much nitpicking at finest, as it is a purely subjective take of the self-proclaimed judge of what Russian propaganda is or is not.

The main point - Ukraine is a corrupt country and that's how it is and there is little point to lawyer speak around that fact. If someone says it bluntly and does not pass your personal judgmental barometer of what is nice or not, it does not mean that said someone is a secret KGB agent.

So for people like this, it's best to just ignore and move on - there is no point fighting bad faith posters all day long.

- - - Updated - - -



You really think Russia is doing this bullshit just for Ukraine? Really?

It's just a stepping stone for them in their plans, that they fumbled the fuck out of that step does not change the fact that the end goal is USSR and confrontation with the West for their "bipolar world" vision of the world.

This is MUCH bigger than just Ukraine.



As if the exact same thing did not happen 10 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_...eonid%20Kuchma

The signatories may be Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists that time around, but the plan was put forward by a European delegation and Ukraine was forced to agree to it due to circumstances. And hell, let's be real for a hot sec: those "separatists" wouldn't wipe their butts after taking a dump without greenlighting that with Kremlin, so so much for "signatories" there.

Saying that the same thing can't happen again is ignoring literal history of the conflict.



So, I am "not entirely wrong here".

See that's the main thing here. The subjective what plays into what does not interest me, I am not going to be denying reality here for feelings.

Everything that ever posted here can be tied to this propaganda or that propaganda, I'm not interested tiptoeing around that bullshit. Real things are real (hence "not entirely wrong part") and fake things are fake.

Doesnt the Minsk agreement betray any arguments that negotiations with Russia would work? Russia has broken all of the Minsk agreements. It has broken the Budapest memorandum and betrayed literally every single Ukranian leader that tried for peace with them. Heck even betrayed the separatists in the Donbas

[Gaidax]

Doesnt the Minsk agreement betray any arguments that negotiations with Russia would work? Russia has broken all of the Minsk agreements. It has broken the Budapest memorandum and betrayed literally every single Ukranian leader that tried for peace with them. Heck even betrayed the separatists in the Donbas

Hence I made an effort to point out that whatever agreement will be made will be temporary or semi-temporary and I have specifically even said this part:

So yes, every side has good reasons to take a pause. I don't think anyone would be naive to think it would be more than a pause, but it probably is for the better for all the parties involved.

However the said pause is still something Ukraine in particular desperately needs.

In case of Ukraine - even just a few years would be a difference of finally having some sort of functioning Air Force and replenishing the troops ranks with new recruits coming of age. Both these things are desperately needed and both of them need time.

[Jastall]

I do wish to remind you that the Great Depression, among other things led to rise of Hitler and eventual WW2. Germany of 20s was too very dependent on US as far as economy went, until that collapsed and resulted in the outcome above.

In other words, what you see now is not necessarily the case 5 or 10 years from now. China is not going to stay restrained by economical ties with the West forever and they are working overtime to on that part.

They have voiced their aims in their region many times and I think people need to listen, but that's kind of off topic already.

---

P.S. Nobody going to be launching any nukes over Taiwan. I don't know how that shitshow will turn out, but that one is certain.

For sure, times change, as the ol' Garrosh said. But it's not just a question of economical ties given how Taiwan dominates that particular market. Upending that would take a crash that makes the Great Depression look like a daily dip, and it's totally impossible to know what China would look like after that considering the CCP's authority rests a lot on its ability to provide a strong, growing economy to its citizenry.

As for voicing their aims, all politics is local and Taiwan is a great saber-rattling target. Not that the threat shouldn't be taken seriously of course, but they've been talking about it for something like seventy years as well.

No one's gonna nuke anything, but the risk always drives policy when dealing with geopolitics at those highest of levels. The closest we came to a nuclear winter was over Cuba for Pete's sake, and Taiwan is far more important. I don't think any decision maker that is half sane just goes "won't happen lol".

[Gaidax]

Wilder things happened over the last few years.

Who would have thought, just 5 years ago we would go through a once in a century epidemy, have a war in Europe, or well whatever happened in my country. All things that defy rationale, that had a long list of reasons why no way that happens or how it's saber rattling or scaremongering and so on.

I'll repeat, I think China's aspirations should be taken very seriously and Taiwan is very clearly in their crosshairs and who knows what kind of calculations go over CCP leadership heads in regards to that, but their desire is clear and I strongly believe it's just a matter of time until they act on it.

[Corvus]

If Ukraine is merely a proxy for the West then the soviets were merely a proxy for the US during ww2 and russia is merely a proxy for China right now.

[Voidism]

If you want to understand the Ukraine war, focus on the essentials. Social media is filled with oversimplified views but if we want Ukraine to survive and possibly win we need to see reality.

Supporting Ukraine isn't just about feeling good or doing the right thing for the Western leaders. Helping Ukraine weakens Russia and reduces its power, which is beneficial for anyone who wants to limit Russian influence. Understanding this helps us make smarter, more effective choices, rather than getting caught up in emotional or naive thinking. It also increases the emotional resilience against (perceived) setbacks.

Being realistic is not about being pessimistic (and definitely NOT about supporting Putin). It means facing the facts to make the best decisions. If one truly supports Ukraine and want to see real help, you need to be realistic. This is how you can influence decisions and achieve results. Catchy slogans and Twitter talking points might feel good, but they don't change the situation. A clear and pragmatic approach is what helps create strategies that truly support Ukraine's long-term success - especially for us folks who are supporting full aid (not to mention, it also retains and develops military industry for future conflicts).

Having this realpolitik view shouldn't deter optimism or the push for aid. In fact it should strengthen our resolve. Understanding the true stakes and challenges makes our support more effective and ensures that our efforts are directed where they can make the most difference. Optimism combined with realistic understanding is what drives meaningful and sustained support for Ukraine. It's not about distrusting Western leaders, it's about seeing what they say for what it is so one can make better decisions.

Related: I see this problem in American politics from an outside perspective. Americans tend to "believe" in the system's realism, that the theater is real if you will and get passionate about it. When you realize it isn't for the most part and most of the fluff is about winning votes, signalling and so on and that there is no evil or good side you can actually start getting real change. Most of the people in the House and Senate are regular people, maybe on average a bit smarter and educated but overall work like you and me.

Put yourself in that position: you have a system that rewards your apparent work with getting votes so you have to appeal to as many as possible - or a stable core of people - to keep your position. You have a party that also tells you what direction you can look for support. You also have perhaps the real reason you want to be there: to serve your country. You get intelligence briefings about stuff all the time and you know that for example China has been gearing up for more than a decade for a potential clash in Taiwan (a place that has a huge effect on the world economy and stability). You also see that your presidential candidate is an actual danger to stability that America ensures but you can't say that.

How would you go about making sure Biden stays in power with all this? Well, the economy! Someone whispered in Trump's ear that the look on him is bad so he stopped opposing the bill(s). Trump looked like the one in charge making life worse for many instead of Biden. Biden gets money to increase the industrial capacity not only to fight a potential war against China but better the odds of him winning the election (creating jobs etc). That is not a guarantee though but definitely helps.

There is also the fact that many in House and Senate might simply get stuff wrong themselves even since they are regular humans in the end. Or that part of them are not even aware of some of the things others are aware of. So you have a dance between many different people, desires and events while also juggling the reason(s) you are there yourself. Much of the meetings are more about who will vote for what to make the impact less severe on each person's electability. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene and so on makes this very difficult though. She and her ilk are basically true believers in the theater and lack depth to an astonishing degree. They have basically made the work of people in their own party very difficult. The opposite of them are AOC, Omar and so on, on the other side. They seem to understand pragmatism better though lol

[Mayhem]

I'll try to explain in good faith, since at least you apparently try to discuss it in good faith this time around.

The word "out" means more of a time out to do what you wrote, namely get a reprieve to rebuild their strength and better align economy to their long term goals. Russia is not going to go docile for long, in case of agreement it will most likely try to push again as soon as China makes a move.

During that time Russia will replenish its stockpiles and take another go at blitzing Ukraine from a stronger position. So for Russia such a timeout is a win, especially because it secures their war gains at least to some extent.

Agreed, this will buy Russia the needed time to regain strength, manpower, and arms and rebuild its military framework because obviously, that thing is not working as it should.

For Ukraine, it's a simple matter of reality that they can't take back what Russia captured by force to any significant extent any time soon.

Forget the arms - they simply don't have the people for it. The 3-5 years or however many the agreement would hold will give them time to both rearm, with most importantly maybe getting airforce in order with F16s, improving air defense (which is also a pain, by the way), preparing and deploying more advanced weaponry and so on. But even more importantly that time will give them another generation of soldiers to field - that is the key here.

That's why I am saying that Ukraine would like the settlement the least, but might benefit from it the most given the current situation.

And again, all of these points are also what Russia will benefit from. Russia too will rearm, improve defense and offense, prepare more advanced weaponry which they can get more easily if the sanctions are lifted, and also give them another generation of soldiers outnumbering Ukraine even more.

So how in the almighty flying fuck is this beneficial for Ukraine?

And for the West, as I have explained, the West needs to start preparing for the confrontation in Taiwan and the aftershocks of that, as well as buy more time to modernize and populate European armies for Russia's plan B/C/whatever. As well as reinforce Ukraine without having to rush or make a drama out of it like it happened with those $60bn. Budgeting the support over a few years is much more palatable than a lump sum like that.

What the West spends on Ukraine is change money. $60bn is nothing and also it is way easier to rearm and modernize if you have an actual conflict running instead of one looming that might or might not happen. As soon as the war was over Russia would immediately use its influence and propaganda machinery to stop Western democracies from reinforcing Ukraine and modernizing European armies.

Another point is that Putin isn't eternal, who knows maybe in 3-4 years from now he won't be around anymore and the next guy in line might be more willing to compromise for permanent settlement. Though I am super skeptic at that, as I keep saying that Putin is just a tip of an iceberg and the system will just put up another Putin instead.

Sweet, so let's hope for the best and help them keep us preparing for the worst. Smort \o/

So yes, every side has good reasons to take a pause. I don't think anyone would be naive to think it would be more than a pause, but it probably is for the better for all the parties involved.

No, only the aggressor currently unable to move forward benefits from a pause. Russia gains territory, sanctions lifted, back to influencing the democracies around the world in every way possible, rebuilds, and comes back stronger than before. Ukraine is in a worse position, have to explain to its people why it agreed while preparing for the inevitable next attack sparking questions about why the fuck they stopped fighting in the first place when war was the outcome. While Russia celebrates and can keep its momentum.

[Flarelaine]

EU membership almost always curbs corruption.

Really the only country that went the opposite is Hungary. But for every Hungary we have ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES where corruption has been curbed.

Eh, we are a virus. But also the antidote. EU rules are being rewritten to better manage ratfucking.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not a secret that corruption in Ukraine is on high levels, and any EU funds would be at risk of being embezzled. Ukraine doing a sudden 180° on it due to war is a wishful thinking. Society at large may change some, but it is still an oligarchy country where those in power stole as they pleased, and lots of work would have to be put in to improve things.

It's not that Ukraine suddenly changed their collective mind about corruption, but they realize it is the condition of Western integration. Partly because several parties in the EU screech about Ukrainian corruption (amazingly the leaders of these parties really like Moscow) and partly because existing members (see my location) already embezzle a lot, Ukraine's entry process and funding will very much be under megawatt lights for a generation at least.

[Shadowferal]

Russia suffers 'worst day yet' in Ukraine with 1,740 troops killed and 72 tanks destroyed

Earlier this month, a ballpark figure provided by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) approximated Russian casualties nearing 465,000, reports the Express. Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne hinted that the true tally could be closer to half a million. The BBC reported at least 50,000 confirmed Russian soldier fatalities.

[Gaidax]

It's not that Ukraine suddenly changed their collective mind about corruption, but they realize it is the condition of Western integration. Partly because several parties in the EU screech about Ukrainian corruption (amazingly the leaders of these parties really like Moscow) and partly because existing members (see my location) already embezzle a lot, Ukraine's entry process and funding will very much be under megawatt lights for a generation at least.

That will be a major uphill battle, because the previously mentioned crime lords from the 90s are the oligarchs and legislators (or own them) nowadays and they aren't about to be cutting off their power and piece of the pie for the betterment of the humankind.

As I see it - it will take children or grandchildren of said ex crime lords to push through the real changes. That will be a process that will take 2-3 decades to root out all this filth and holy hell there is a lot of it there.

Still better than Russia, that has no choice but to stagnate under its current leadership. At least for Ukraine there is a light in the end of the long ass tunnel.

[Yunru]

By the looks of it, russa may invade georgia again:


I guess if they cant take over Ukraine, they will try for second best thing.

[Shadowferal]

Yea...we saw Georgia coming earlier