[Robert Urbanek]

Given Putin’s total control over Russian media, he has the option of eventually pulling out of Ukraine while still declaring victory, perhaps with language such as “Our special operation has succeeded in destroying the Nazi elements of the Ukraine military and our soldiers can now proudly return home.”

A precedent for a dictator backing out of a military stalemate can be found in the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. Saddam Hussein claimed victory although the end of the war resulted in no border changes.

In 1990 Saddam Hussein rode on a white horse under the newly created "Hands of Victory" monument to commemorate his declared victory over Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. The hands of the monument were created from casts of the dictator’s very own arms.

Hopefully, Putin won’t take eight years to declare victory and leave Ukraine.

[Rancid]

Maybe, although he would have a very hard time getting is troops out given how many of their vehicles are breaking down.

[Atlantis]

Everybody is speculating about what Putin wants. Why isn't anybody considering the possibility that he means what he says, in particular, with regard to Ukraine's Nato membership?

It would have been much easier to occupy Ukraine in 2014. Since then, Nato members have armed and trained Ukrainian forces to drive up the cost for the Russians and, by implication, the casualties for the Ukrainians.

If the Russians were to wait another 8 years, Ukraine would have become de facto Nato member. This was the last opportunity for preventing Ukraine's Nato membership, which, rightly or wrongly, the Russians consider a threat to their national security.

China and not Ukraine is in the focus of the US's strategic attention. Ukraine has no interest to the US, but enormous interests to Russia. Thus, on the issue of Nato enlargement, who needs a ladder to step down on, Russia or the US?

[noemon]

Everybody is speculating about what Putin wants. Why isn't anybody considering the possibility that he means what he says, in particular, with regard to Ukraine's Nato membership?

Because it was the EU trade agreement that precipitated euromaidan, NATO was not important in Ukrainian politics before Russia invaded again in 2014.

It would have been much easier to occupy Ukraine in 2014. Since then, Nato members have armed and trained Ukrainian forces to drive up the cost for the Russians and, by implication, the casualties for the Ukrainians.

Being able to protect oneself reduces ones casualties. Ukraine evidently has had real existential issues since 2014 and it is currently facing extermination, it should be ones duty to arm them.

If the Russians were to wait another 8 years, Ukraine would have become de facto Nato member. This was the last opportunity for preventing Ukraine's Nato membership, which, rightly or wrongly, the Russians consider a threat to their national security.

Ukraine could not get into NATO and especially with occupied territories but Putin made sure to turn it into an existential issue and make NATO central to Ukrainian independence.

Thus, on the issue of Nato enlargement, who needs a ladder to step down on, Russia or the US?

Ukraine of course. Russia is shooting at Ukranians not Americans.

And besides the US does not have any right to change NATO's open door policy nor is the US coercing anybody to apply.

[Rancid]

who needs a ladder to step down on, Russia or the US?

Russia

[wat0n]

Everybody is speculating about what Putin wants. Why isn't anybody considering the possibility that he means what he says, in particular, with regard to Ukraine's Nato membership?

It would have been much easier to occupy Ukraine in 2014. Since then, Nato members have armed and trained Ukrainian forces to drive up the cost for the Russians and, by implication, the casualties for the Ukrainians.

If the Russians were to wait another 8 years, Ukraine would have become de facto Nato member. This was the last opportunity for preventing Ukraine's Nato membership, which, rightly or wrongly, the Russians consider a threat to their national security.

China and not Ukraine is in the focus of the US's strategic attention. Ukraine has no interest to the US, but enormous interests to Russia. Thus, on the issue of Nato enlargement, who needs a ladder to step down on, Russia or the US?

And yet, Putin could then go after the Baltics if he were not stopped beforehand.

I'm guessing Putin will get part of what he wants (for starters, the Donbass and Crimea will likely be ceded by Ukraine, perhaps with a corridor to connect them by land, and maybe he will get Ukraine to refrain from joining NATO and I suspect the EU itself may refuse to admit Ukraine once things calm down), but he'll have to bleed for it and will think twice, thrice and more before pulling these antics against NATO members, including the Baltics.

[Unthinking Majority]

State sovereignty is an international law, but nobody respects it or enforces it except at the barrel of a gun, so we're back to square one playing power politics. Unfortunately a country doesn't have state sovereignty unless they're able to enforce it. Ukraine should have sovereignty, as should every country, but they don't have that guarantee, so we have failed as an international system. Nothing has changed since WWII except the polarity of the international state system.

The game is "might makes right" and always has been. Ukraine should have never given up all of its nukes.

NATO doesn't care about Ukraine, it cares about Russia not getting more powerful. NATO will probably fund an insurgency indefinitely, and Russia will get whatever aims it can manage and keep troops stationed as far east as it can. I'd imagine the country will be split in 2. The eastern regions will be proclaimed independent by Russia and then they'll have a referendum and join Russia. No matter what NATO did Putin was going to annex them.

[Atlantis]

And yet, Putin could then go after the Baltics if he were not stopped beforehand.

People push such propaganda to heighten war hysteria in the West. By conservative estimates, Nato's military force exceeds the Russian by a factor of 10 to 20. When would you feel safe if 10 to 20 times stronger isn't safe enough?

I'm guessing Putin will get part of what he wants (for starters, the Donbass and Crimea will likely be ceded by Ukraine, perhaps with a corridor to connect them by land, and maybe he will get Ukraine to refrain from joining NATO and I suspect the EU itself may refuse to admit Ukraine once things calm down), but he'll have to bleed for it and will think twice, thrice and more before pulling these antics against NATO members, including the Baltics.

As I said, the outcome is now being decided on the battle field. What anybody wants doesn't really matter. I don't believe the Russians want to occupy Ukraine. The cost is far too high. They just don't have any other way of achieving their objective. But as hostilities proceed, the cost for Ukraine will increase. If it hadn't been for the Maidan coup, Ukraine could still have sovereignty over Crimea. Now, each day, Ukraine will have to pay a higher price in terms of territory lost.

You can compare it to Georgia. In 2008 G.W. Bush invited Ukraine and Georgia into Nato. Georgia believed it had US backing for taking back separatist regions by force and thus launched a military campaign. As it turned out, the separatists got reinforcement from Russia and now occupy 1/3 of Georgia, more than before. The US didn't of course intervene to help Georgia. Ukraine is the same old story all over again. Ukraine never tried to negotiate with the separatists, which it calls terrorists.

If you poke the bear in the eye, don’t act surprised if he doesn’t like it.

[wat0n]

People push such propaganda to heighten war hysteria in the West. By conservative estimates, Nato's military force exceeds the Russian by a factor of 10 to 20. When would you feel safe if 10 to 20 times stronger isn't safe enough?

I don't know, you tell me. Putin's the one who's scared of Ukraine.

As I said, the outcome is now being decided on the battle field. What anybody wants doesn't really matter. I don't believe the Russians want to occupy Ukraine. The cost is far too high. They just don't have any other way of achieving their objective. But as hostilities proceed, the cost for Ukraine will increase. If it hadn't been for the Maidan coup, Ukraine could still have sovereignty over Crimea. Now, each day, Ukraine will have to pay a higher price in terms of territory lost.

You can compare it to Georgia. In 2008 G.W. Bush invited Ukraine and Georgia into Nato. Georgia believed it had US backing for taking back separatist regions by force and thus launched a military campaign. As it turned out, the separatists got reinforcement from Russia and now occupy 1/3 of Georgia, more than before. The US didn't of course intervene to help Georgia. Ukraine is the same old story all over again. Ukraine never tried to negotiate with the separatists, which it calls terrorists.

If you poke the bear in the eye, don’t act surprised if he doesn’t like it.

NATO voted against admitting Ukraine and Georgia, just as a reminder.

As for the Maidan, Ukraine just wanted to trade with the EU (it wasn't even seeking to join). I guess then that Finland and Sweden are also big threats to Russia since they are in the EU despite not being in NATO, aren't they?

Yes, this will ultimately be decided on the battlefield. As such, NATO and the EU have every reason to arm Ukraine: If the prospect of Ukraine or Georgia joining NATO some day justified a Russian invasion of those countries, then the prospect of Russia invading and getting closer to the border with NATO fully justifies sending aid to those aiming to fight Russia. Or that type of argument only runs one way?

[Atlantis]

I don't know, you tell me. Putin's the one who's scared of Ukraine.

If Putin were afraid of Ukraine he wouldn't have invaded it. Putin is afraid of Nato expansion.

NATO voted against admitting Ukraine and Georgia, just as a reminder.

On the contrary, Nato refused to give assurances that it won't expand Eastward. Russia wants guarantees because it has no reason to believe people who have lied to Russia for over 30 years. 30 years ago, Western leaders assured Gorbachev that Nato would not expand one inch East of the river Elbe. Again in 1997, the Russia-Nato Founding Act guarantees that Nato forces and missile systems will not be stationed in the new members. Russia has objected for years to the stationing of US missile systems in Romania and Poland, from where Moscow can be hit in a few minutes flight-time.

I guess then that Finland and Sweden are also big threats to Russia since they are in the EU despite not being in NATO, aren't they?

Russia did not invade Finland or Sweden even though they are not in Nato. That also applies to Ukraine, until it made efforts to get into Nato since before 2008.

[Beren]

I suspect the EU itself may refuse to admit Ukraine once things calm down

In my opinion the EU will take them in sooner or later in order to prevent Russia from ever restoring its European empire.

[wat0n]

If Putin were afraid of Ukraine he wouldn't have invaded it. Putin is afraid of Nato expansion.

He is though afraid of what Ukraine could become in the future - and to a great deal it's a consequence of Russia taking Crimea and the Donbass.

On the contrary, Nato refused to give assurances that it won't expand Eastward. Russia wants guarantees because it has no reason to believe people who have lied to Russia for over 30 years. 30 years ago, Western leaders assured Gorbachev that Nato would not expand one inch East of the river Elbe. Again in 1997, the Russia-Nato Founding Act guarantees that Nato forces and missile systems will not be stationed in the new members. Russia has objected for years to the stationing of US missile systems in Romania and Poland, from where Moscow can be hit in a few minutes flight-time.

Nothing here can deny what I mentioned, however.

Also, the 1997 Founding Act did not mention anything about conventional missiles. It only refers to nuclear weapons, none of which are located in former Warsaw Pact states.

Russia did not invade Finland or Sweden even though they are not in Nato. That also applies to Ukraine, until it made efforts to get into Nato since before 2008.

But they are in the EU, and Russia pressured Yanukovich not to enter in trade agreements (not even accession, just trade) leading to his withdrawal from the agreement, the rest is history. In hindsight, this was a bad idea.

[Skynet]

The West has to make a real offer: Like all sanctions lifted for peace.

[MadMonk]

The West has to make a real offer: Like all sanctions lifted for peace.

Withdraw all offensive forces across the Russian and Belarusian borders and we'll discuss it. We can even let him keep Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk perhaps for a substantial compensation to Ukraine for the destruction already caused and territorial loss.

Anything else, go pound sand.

[Skynet]

Withdraw all offensive forces across the Russian and Belarusian borders and we'll discuss it. We can even let him keep Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk perhaps for a substantial compensation to Ukraine for the destruction already caused and territorial loss.

Anything else, go pound sand.

This has before the withdraw of Russian troops to be negotiated.

[Negotiator]

It is common knowledge - at least to those people who bother to inform themselves:

- Russia was attacked three times in recent centuries, by Napoleon, the german emperor (WW1), and Hitler (WW2)

- Russia is the worlds second biggest exporter of military technology since many decades

- Russia has universal conscription; the only alternative is prison

- Russians are (in)famous for valuing their military very highly

These are all pre-war pieces of information because every information one can get since the war started might be a propaganda lie.

Believing that Russia would be an easy opponent, like Iraq, is thus just funny and absurd. This is not just the other nuclear superpower next to the USA, this is also the second (or possibly first) best equipped military worldwide.

[Rancid]

Believing that Russia would be an easy opponen

Who here believed that before the war? I'll answer for you, No one did, so stop making shit up. pre-war, everyone thought we would be in the insurgency phase of this war by now. That is to say, everyone believed that Russia military would have taken over the entire country by now, even with the western weapons and training.

That said, Russia has proven it is not as capable as everyone thought, and as hard as they projected that image. No one said this is going to be easy. Against NATO.. yes, it would be very easy to destroy Putin's army. This is not where we are though. NATO countries are too scared of Putin's empty nuclear threats. Yes, I think NATO should move in and embarrass Putin. Send him running into the arms of China like the bitch he is.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

I think if Russia attacks a NATO member then the U.S. needs to obviously directly fight Russia. If, after attacking a NATO country, and a war between NATO and Russia erupts, Russia uses a nuclear weapon, we should respond in kind with our own nuclear weapons. However, as it stands, we can't go in and help Ukraine. The risk of nuclear war erupting if we did is simply too high and there would be no payoff for doing so. I think Putin would use nuclear weapons and one of the reasons he would is the fact he is quite literally a psychopath with no regard for human life in the least bit.

I think Biden is making wise decisions currently and playing his hand well. That being said, the risk of nuclear war is higher now because Putin thought he would go into Ukraine and win. That hasn't happened. He hasn't backed off his original goals very much but I don't think Putin can achieve his objectives currently. What he can do though is lay waste to Ukraine much like Russia did to Chechnya and Aleppo in Syria.

And you never know, he might employ chemical weapons in Ukraine given that chemical weapons were used in Syria when the Russians were there. Heck, he might even use small tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainians without any sort of NATO intervention as a last-ditch attempt to achieve his objectives in Ukraine he has so far failed to achieve. The Ukrainians are not giving up their sovereignty nor recognizing the territory Russia stole from the Ukrainians in 2014 as independent states. So, it should be interesting to see how this all ends.

[Skynet]

@Negotiator

Russia is bad in Invasion wars... before Nazi operation "Barbarossa" the Red Army got badly beaten by the Finns... so Hitler assumed the red army is a joke... 80% of German Soldiers were killed in the Eastern Front.

80 percent of all German military casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. Germany lost 5.5 million soldiers and 1.8 million civilians. The percentage of its population that perished was 10.77%.

WWII Eastern Fronthttp://gorhistory.com › hist111 › WWII_EasternFront

[Unthinking Majority]