I don't imagine that this will be a popular take, but this article argues that Ukraine should settle the war as soon as possible, even if this means losing the Donbas. Ukraine can then turn the massive goodwill they currently enjoy into a massive economic rebuilding program.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-as-possible
Ukrainian's might not want to take this advice - it's their prerogative, but that doesn't make the advice bad.
"Yeah, you should just give away 20% of your country, we will surely invest in rebuilding the remaining part, after you have lost all your natural gas and oil reserves and this time we will honestly let you in nato and eu, promise !"Originally Posted by duckduck
Henry should suck the end of a gun barrel, instead of speaking another word, but sure peddle his ideas as not bad.
But isn't there a danger that a year from now the frontlines are in about the same position, but many more Ukrainians are dead and even more Ukrainian infrastructure is destroyed? Might it also be possible that compassion fatigue hits the west and the supplies of heavy weapons dries up and the promised funds for rebuilding become loads? As a wise man once said, "You've got to be realistic about these things.""Yeah, you should just give away 20% of your country, we will surely invest in rebuilding the remaining part, after you have lost all your natural gas and oil reserves and this time we will honestly let you in nato and eu, promise !"
I see your counter-points. I agree with many of them, but I think that this article gives a perspective that is worth considering. At least for a bit longer than you (and Malcanis) did.
With the difference being from now that they are rearmed with far better logistics and training, the black sea fleet reinforced and missile stocks replenished. It also appears Russia is close to the end of its material resource and forced into a defensive posture and Ukraine is getting more supplies from the West. The only way a peace deal makes any sense is if it includes immediate accession to NATO but that's not going to happen.The danger is on par of making a settlement with russia that they will surely honour for realsies this time and not try another landgrab in the future, promise, super serious this time.But isn't there a danger that a year from now the frontlines are in about the same position"Yeah, you should just give away 20% of your country, we will surely invest in rebuilding the remaining part, after you have lost all your natural gas and oil reserves and this time we will honestly let you in nato and eu, promise !"
The danger is on par of making a settlement with russia that they will surely honour for realsies this time and not try another landgrab in the future, promise, super serious this time.But isn't there a danger that a year from now the frontlines are in about the same position"Yeah, you should just give away 20% of your country, we will surely invest in rebuilding the remaining part, after you have lost all your natural gas and oil reserves and this time we will honestly let you in nato and eu, promise !"
Iirc foregoing NATO membership is one of the few things Zelensky has put up for negotiation. It makes sense since it saves some face for Putin, while Ukraine will probably still be covered by the EU security umbrella in the future.
Voluntarily giving away any territory is laughable though, at best it cripples Ukraine forever at worst it just freezes the frontline for another 5 years.
It's an impossible question. How many lives is "not one inch" worth? And on the other hand, you don't negotiate with terrorists for very important reasons.
I seem to remember that Zelensky himself has put forward such a notion to give up portions of Donbass not too long ago. I am personally with you here, Malc. But as a president of his country and people, he's doing his due diligence of wagering the potential future losses (both in human lifes and infrastructureand resources) against giving up a couple of square miles."Yeah, you should just give away 20% of your country, we will surely invest in rebuilding the remaining part, after you have lost all your natural gas and oil reserves and this time we will honestly let you in nato and eu, promise !"
The world might be very well willing to throw money at the Ukraine after the war in order to help them rebuild. But it still needs lots of time doing so.
It certainly does make the advice bad in the circumstances. The current government/dictatorship with russia has a very aggressive, expansionist outlook not only to local countries but worldwide (see the shit they are pulling in Africa and the middle east atm). Remember that putin gives no fucks in relation to treaties and agreements and has allowed/ordered his armed forces to perform defacto war crimes in many areas of the wold (bombing of hospitals/civilian air raid shelters/water infrastructure/electricity infrastructure, use of chemical/cluster/thermobaric weapons, forced re-location/systematic rape/torture/show trials etc., etc., etc.). Putin currently appears someone with very strong dark triad/quad traits and given the power to exercise them. You don't make deals with those people as they WILL break them.
If Ukraine were to sign another treaty with Russia, given what has happened already and Putins past form and his outlook, i would not give a busted teacup for the chances of that treaty being honoured for more than three years. Although the war is causing significant collateral damage to Ukraine and its people, Ukraine appears to be fighting for its survival as a sovereign nation. A treaty will just allow Russia to rearm and attempt the same thing again once their forces have built up once more.
There is also the global geo-political aspect of this war as well. Russian money has been used to produce a significant net of propaganda/lobbying/political/economic interests for the russian regime which is starting to destabilise many countries in the west due to the fragility/corruptability of our economic and political systems (France, UK, USA, Germany, Austria et al), add into that the spiralling cost of fuel and food, that this war is creating, and you may see some significant unrest in the west in the future, which is exactly Putins desired outcome. The US, UK and Australia have all voted in populist leaders within the recent past electoral cycles, who's backing largely stems from russian interest groups, which has and continues to cause unrest and divisiveness harming those nations ability to react to issues like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Until either the wests political and economic systems are regulated to a much better degree (to prevent the ability of propaganda/lobbying/interest groups wielding power) or those nation start living within our local means, this destabilisation (and putins goal) will continue to be advanced.
Shitting up eve for .... well, longer than most of you scumbags.
Let's see if something advantagous comes out of this.
https://twitter.com/YourAnonSpider/s...24651931746305
Well, this is as clear as it gets - and yes, that's official Twitter account of Russia's Foreign Affairs ministry.
https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/statu...78070293139456
Full on crazy mode activated.
Why is it called earth, when it is mostly water???
T-72 protected by stone (?) addon armor.
Unfortunately, I think time is on Russia's side. And I don't think that sanctions - or lack thereof, have anything to do with it.
As I stated here before, I don't think supplies will be a problem for the Ukraine for the foreseeable future, but rather manpower. With increasing casualties, Ukraine will find it harder and harder to man all the equipment they'll receive. Russia OTOH hand will simply throw more conscripts into the meat grinder. Its supply may run low eventually, but I'm convinced that there are more than enough countries willing to supply them with what they need ... and get some favorable deals out if it.
[Edit]
Uups - 1st time one of my postings is placed ahead of the one to which I replied.
are you aware of how the world functions and you still make statements like this or are you just huffing paint?
are you aware of how the world functions and you still make statements like this or are you just huffing paint?
Time is on whose’s side? Ukraine will get more weapons but is there any conceivable measure that will bring the price of oil down?? I already have no interest in the Ukrainian war and there will be much less public support here when we are all in a recession. Putin might be betting that, given enough time, Washington will blink first. I’m not sure he’s wrong.
Washington has already passed a funding plan for the war to the end of the year. And fuck Russia, giving in to them will just mean we will go again in two years, better to get this done now.
What has Washington got to do with it? I thought USA was mostly sitting this one out and letting EU take point on supporting Ukraine. And I don't see the EU forgetting about this war any time soon, it's uncomfortably close to home.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks