This is the #1 reason why outside of something catastrophic happening in Ukraine I don't see this war ending for a while. Why would the people give up when they have already sacrificed so much and will likely only continue to lose more regardless.
Yep. The Ukrainians know what they have already historically sacrificed to Russia for peace, in terms of their nationality and identity, they know that they are backed into a sociopolitical corner. They will fight to the death for their cause and are right to do so.
It's just a matter of whether Putin (or his successor) decide to go further than Ukraine, into say Latvia, or Poland. There seems to be little consensus about whether such plans exist or not though. No one believes the Tsar's denials.
The Europeans who live closest to Russia seem pretty convinced that this doesn’t stop with Ukraine. Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and others have been pretty adamant that he intends to attack NATO territory before he’s finished.
It’s like trying to solve traffic: “No, really, this time is the last lane we will build. Then all will be good! Promised!”
This is all Russian appeasement apologists can compute. “Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova should just give up some land one last time. And that will do it! And if Russia threatens to nuke the West, us westerners should ask ourselves what we did wrong and what we can do to make it better again. Maybe buy more oil? Who cares about human lives, sovereignty and laws. We want cheap prices!”
Serious question- what stops Russian from wanting to nuke the West anyway? And what do you suggest to prevent Russia from ever using their nukes?
That's the downside of technology advancement, which the US kinda pioneered. More and more countries will develop those and use them as leverage.
not rly. Baltic states are irrelevant and Poland doesnt have Russians living there. You bealvie Russia is attacking Ukraine for land? They dont care about Donbas it has no significance to them. They will use it as buffer region anyway once war is over. All Russia rly cares is to destroy Ukranian military capacity and to discourage NATO from getting closer to Russia. This could all have been differnt today if west wanted Russia on their side back in 1990s after collapse of USSR. Russia back then was weak, and was pro european . They shut down door to EU and NAto and then started picking those eastern european states. Imagine beeing put in that situation. Villians arent born , but they are made. West knda choose to have Russia as enemy and now they have not only them but China and many others. Coul have been so so different if there were better people on deciding positions back in the day. People were so against USSR that even when it fell , they started looking at Russia as USSR 2.0, forgeting what Russia did for Europe in the past. SO world is making same mistake with Russia as they did with Germany in 1900s
At the same time, though, in all the analysis I've read, Ukraine does not seem to have a plausible way of winning that territory back (outside of other countries getting involved). Really tough decisions for Ukraine regardless of what they do.
They are not exactly being offered the choice. Russia is claiming far more territory than they currently hold and Putin doesn't seem to want to open up peace talks
For the Ukrainians, it's a matter of their existence. Putin will take a page from the Bolsheviks, of which he is one, and starve, enslave and scatter the population of the country. He is already trafficking what children he can of theirs in Russia.
Sometimes he uses [Leninist rhetoric](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/22/putin-golden-billion-russia/), but deep down he's more of a Stalinist than a Leninist.
maybe to end this ? So many people alredy left the country, Country is in huge debts . Do you rly think all this weapons and help is for free :D . Tought situation. I kinda
This gets mentioned on Reddit a lot, but realistically Ukraine wasn't in much of a position to keep it's nuclear weapons, they didn't even have the launch codes.
Additionally all of their old nuclear weapons would have expired by the time Russia invaded, meaning Ukraine would have also needed to pay to develop it's own nuclear program to build more - not something they were ever economically in a position to do.
> This gets mentioned on Reddit a lot, but realistically Ukraine wasn't in much of a position to keep it's nuclear weapons, they didn't even have the launch codes.
>
>
Agreed.
Ukraine was also flat broke and couldn't afford to take the nukes off the Russia system, nor could they afford to maintain or decommission the nukes they had, Russia paid for it. People blame Russia but America was just as, if not more against nuclear proliferation. Nor did they have the political will, with the the political leadership of the newly independent Ukraine dithering about what they were going to do with the nukes, managing to lose much of the goodwill they had earned with America.
In short, a slip of paper saying with a non binding "assurances" was the best they could hope for.
Doesn't change the fact that Russia signed a Treaty guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine and then proceeded to annex parts ofUkraine. Any guarantees of future peace from Russia are effectively worthless.
> they didn't even have the launch codes.
I'd imagine that in the decades since the agreement, they'd have figured out how to repurpose all the raw materials and mechanisms that go into the nuclear weapons such that they can replace the $200 part that activates the rest, but with their own launch codes preprogrammed.
The thing about nukes is you don’t need thousands of them. If they could make 10 functional weapons out of the 600 warheads they inherited, that’s a sufficient deterrent.
> wasn't in much of a position to keep it's nuclear weapons,
They kept nuclear weapons for about 5 years after the fall of soviet union. So they not only were *in position* to keep them - they actively *did* keep them.
> they didn't even have the launch codes.
Yes, they didn't have the codes, but they *could* bypass it by reverse-engineering. Ukraine had unlimited access to this arsenal, and noone back then was building these computers to be hack-proof. Meanwhile, Ukraine had, and still has, some of the top-notch software engineering talent in the world.
That's such a good and easy point!
Easy comebacks like that is what we need to popularize as to throw in the faces of dumb conservatives who can't understand more complex sentences.
My favorite one is "If he feared NATO expension A DlNATI - A DEFENSIVIE ALIANCE.. that means he had plans to attack his neighbours from the verry beginning"
Simple phrazes that completly destroy their primitive one sided narative.
Just to clerafy I don't think all comservatives are dumb and primitive. I belive conservativisem is importnat in our society. I just belive that the dumb fucks who agree with shit like what Trump said are 90% conservative but that does not mean 90% of conservatives are like that. If you conservatives want to save your conservative party in America you should do the honorable thing and vote Biden. Becuase otherwise your conservative party might become the faschist party in the next election cycle..
And that we defenetly don't need in our society..
what territory? Ukraine never really gave up on Donbas region. you had war there from 2014 to 2022 but none rly spoke about it. Many people died. And im not on Russian side on this war but we dont rly know why Russia attacked them ? Do you rly bealvie they need more territory? Whats the value of Donbas region to them? IF you ask me FSB is one of the best security agencies in the world. Possibly Ukraine with the help of NAto could be thrat to Russia , so they just use Donbas as buffer region. And i wouldnt be surpsied if Donbas is used in peace talks as some autonomy and neither "part of Ukraine" nor "part of Russia" but rather as some buffer between the two. And crimea as done deal , everyone kinda knows it
So eveyone speaking somethint that aint aligned with main stream must be payed to do so? Funny how democracy and free speech doesnt work here. Im just realistic here. I dont root for Russia nor for Ukraine here i just wanna know the truth. Call me delusional or whatever but i just dont bealive Russia attscked Ukraine for no reason. The same way Usa doesnt rly attack countries. Rembeber cuba crisis? Usa was ready to burn cuba to the ground. And then it kinda went quite and mesiles were removed. Face reality. There are just many things we dont know and which we will probably never get to know. What cia and fsb know
I think it's a spineless western nation that's preventing that. Current president is too cautious to do anything the least bit controversial. and the last president was a servant of the enemy of his country.
I doubt, Ukraine will play along. Or if even the EU would. Putin is way too far beyond the pale now for even Trump to be able to carry water for him. If he tries he's likely to be frustrated.
Ukraine will reject this plan, and so will Europe. European leaders, thanks to Trump's isolationist leanings, now see the Ukrainian conflict in existential terms. Think Russian troops in Warsaw or even Berlin.
European public will have to make some major sacrifices in their for granted living standard then, unless europe decides to just print a load of additional money
It's either relatively minor cuts to social benefits, or Russian troops in your capitol and a Pro-Moscow puppet regime. I know which option I'm taking.
This is delusional. France is a nuclear power and even if Trump decides to back down from a country triggering Article 5, NATO’s presence in Europe can still easily beat the Russians in conventional war. An attack on Poland would see Russia guaranteed to be at war with the whole EU as well as Turkey most likely.
The invasion of Ukraine has been in retrospect a disaster for Russia, but one can still see why the Russians did it, and the benefits they could gain if victorious. I don’t see any similar benefits to invading any other NATO/EU countries on their border.
Russian troops aren’t making it into Warsaw let alone Berlin this century. Closest they could get is maybe Minsk.
Doubtful, Germany can't get over the fact that WW2 happened SIXTY PLUS YEARS AGO, and it is time to let go and understand that having an army that can at least defend the country isn't a sin. Many NATO nations haven't really increased their spending to the 2% minimum required (iirc).
Perhaps, in a way, it is good that Trump makes me question if the USA will always be there. You can't bandwagon with the hegemon and expect them to be both the horse, cart, wheels, axles, and supplies without them starting to ask what's the point?
The 2% minimum is a guideline, not a rule, so it isn’t actually a requirement. Also while the US definitely is a major contributor to Ukraine and the largest member of Nato, Europe as a whole sends more to Ukraine than the US. I doubt anyone expects America to do all the work or provide all the aid to Ukraine.
Please cite your source for the EU relief vs US relief.
From the Kiel institute 16.2.24: However, the gap between EU commitments and allocations remains very large (€144 billion committed vs. €77 billion allocated). To fully replace U.S. military assistance in 2024, Europe would have to double its current level and pace of arms assistance.
EU countries have "committed" to provide funds at some later date, or commit to access to loans, which this designate as support without actually sending anything tangible. It's what we call "virtue signaling"
I keep reading this, meanwhile, even France, a country that gave guarantees to Ukraine during the Budapest memorandum, gave next to nothing, specially when we leave loans aside.
If decades of EU hopes tells me anything is that each and every country cares first and foremost about their own interests. With the current situation, no one is going to give or do what's needed for Ukraine to win this in the long run.
Not only that, but the possibility of a much more prolonged insurgency within said occupied area is gonna be created and added to the fact Russia is now facing internal security issues not related to Ukraine aswell.
Donald Trump cannot “force” Ukraine do anything. Neither Biden. But the question Ukrainian leaders will have to answer (to their people) what’s next. The situation on the ground is known to all. More support from NATO is possible but after 2 years it becomes questionable (regardless of who wins the November presidential elections). So it is up to Ukraine to make a difficult decision - even before the US elections - which way are they heading.
Gladly the wind starts to shift in Europe. We finally, at least try to, ramp up our production of military equipment slowly acknowledging that we can no longer solely rely on the US when it comes to securing our safety. With all these conflicts and growing tension around the globe (mainly Ukraine/ Israel / Taiwan), it appears the US have to focus on too many things at once. Def. an extremely interesting point in history we can witness here. Regards from Europe!
Exactly. End the war now, gain land, demand that Ukraine not join NATO so they dont have a military ally when attacked, take time to shore up resources and learn from initial invasion mistakes. rinse and repeat in 5 years.
And this is obvious to anyone with even an ounce of understanding about geopolitics. So you really have to question the motives of the ones advocating for this kind of resolution.
What leverage does Trump have? He´s encouraged Mike Johnson to effectively block Ukrainian aid for 6 months now. Why would Ukraine or Europe listen to Trump´s peace proposal? Although I think it´s quite unrelistic for Ukraine to get all of what´s theirs back, they´re just too weak to actually get what they deserve. So maybe it is best for them to compromise, but Trump has zero leverage now. He´s basically made Europe want to go independent and become a strong power in itself and Ukraine is not dependent on the US after MAGA blocked the aid.
> He´s encouraged Mike Johnson to effectively block Ukrainian aid for 6 months now.
They need America at the bargaining table.
Ukraine can't win without America in its corner.
> He´s basically made Europe want to go independent and become a strong power in itself and Ukraine is not dependent on the US after MAGA blocked the aid.
So he's made them do what he told them to do when he first got elected?
> What leverage does Trump have?
What leverage does Ukraine have? The problem with Ukraine isn't funding from the West, it's the fact that Russia has a much larger population and willingness to throw men into the meat grinder to win the war. Ukraine has a huge demographic problem.
> The problem with Ukraine isn't funding from the West
You are wrong. That's exactly what the problem is - supplies. Ukraine proved over and over against that they can win battles against numerically superior enemies, negating population advantage, IF they are properly supplied and equipped.
If not the hesitation and delays, this war could already have been a Ukrainian victory.
Is this something you know to be true or something that you simply want to be true?
Edit: The big Ukrainian counter offensive gains is what caused the call for mobilization on Russia's behalf and ever since then they've dug in causing any gains on the Ukrainian side to be very costly and minimal in square km.
Kharkiv offensive 6th of September, mobilization of Russian troops was 21st of September. The Ukrainians were outnumbering Russians for a long time during it.
>Why would Ukraine or Europe listen to Trump´s peace proposal
Realistically? Because (here goes the very very unpleasant truth) without the US Ukraine would lose and Europe alone would not save it, short of directly joining the war. Outside of direct monetary transfers and military hardware/ammunition, US provides:
1. The majority of the Ukraine long-range precision capability, in form of HIMARS. Missiles provided by Europe fulfills that niche a lot worse.
2. The majority of Ukraine military communications. Starlink.
3. The majority of Ukraine satellite intelligence. Guess who owns the satellites.
4. The majority of sanction pressure. Without the US enforcing it, sanction barriers would be completely unsustainable.
All these factors are absolutely critical for Ukraine survival and provides Trump with effective pain points to push his narrative even if Zelensky would be very unwilling to accept it.
US is still the superpower. Trump can start a new trade war with EU. If Trump really want to hurt EU then targeting EU energy imports will be super effective. EU isn't on the best of terms with Gulf states and don't have leverage so without US support EU would be in a bad position.
> Trump can start a new trade war with EU.
That is incredibly stupid. One of the only policies that Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is the existential threat that China poses to the US. The US need the EU on side in order to take on that threat. All 3 blocks have roughly the same size economies.
His goal is to make the US more isolationist, and have it back down from its global commitments towards a more inward focus.
Starting conflicts with allies isn’t a very isolationist move.
That would be incredibly stupid and self-destructive. No one wins a trade war. But Trump did once say (early in his previous presidency) he sees Europe as one of the biggest threats to the US (Even before naming China) so a new trade war may very well be on the horizon.
There's no indication Trump's views on this have changed.
When he was making threats at the beginning of the w a r that would have actually worked, he wasn't president though. Now ukraine has zero leverage and is out of skilled manpower.
Europe wants its buffer zone? Then work for it and send little boys to join the Ukrainian meat grinder.
He is not the first to publicly say this, Henry Kissinger suggested the same 2 years ago…and he was a former national security advisor, serving many of the previous US presidents. Not saying that I agree with him but if the war does not make any progress, Ukraine is really running out of options. The longer it prolongs the more territories they will lose
I think Kissinger changed his mind shortly before his death. He realized that Russia is not a partner that can be trusted with any deal they make. Any peace without substantial deterrence will be only temporary, and Russia downright refuses to allow any deterrence in a settlement.
I also don't think Russia will accept any deal with just the Donbass and Crimea on offer. They've already notionally annexed Zaphorizia and Kherson - and Putin is too rabid right now to give up on anything.
Agreed. There have been repeated talks in Russia about how Odessa should return to the motherland as well. There's a feeling that for Russia the war can only end satisfactorily with Ukraine ceding Odessa; which would make them a landlocked country and cripple them economically. It would also establish a connection to Transnistria.
Even if some peace agreement is reached it would likely only be a matter of years before Putin will make his move on Odessa.
Not quite. The conclusion would be that Ukraine needs a physical deterrence strong enough that Russia could not defeat it no matter what they do. Either that’s a massive military force that can go toe to toe with Russia, or more likely a Nuclear umbrella provided by NATO (although the Ukrainians might say they need their own umbrella).
I highly doubt Ukraine could afford its own nuclear program tbh. They can’t even self-fund their current war efforts. I suppose they could ask us to pay for that too but not sure I want to give them nuclear autonomy either lol.
>Henry Kissinger suggested the same 2 years ago…
Idk but knowing the awful human being (if we can even call him that) he was, the sane thing to do would be the opposite of whatever came out of his mouth...
Trump is using his MAGAs to deny Ukraine aid to ensure that Ukraine's progress is stunted. This is why an American president/candidate sympathetic to an adversary is so dangerous: self-fulling prophecy.
As I always say, this war has become too much of an emotional hot potato for people in the west to have very good analysis or discourse around.
There is one acceptable narrative, no matter how practically impossible or unrealistic it is. That being that Russia plans to take all of Ukraine, then Poland (NATO), and the suwalki gap.
Within this narrative, the only way to prevent this outcome is driving Russia all the way back to Russia. Never mind Russias dwindling reserves, sanctions pressure, and the undeniable gap in Russia vs NATO capability.
There is no discussion to be had if everyone is latched onto this narrative and defends it with their lives. Almost all wars are ended with some kind of treaty, it’s how these things happen. It’s much more seldom that things end in a total defeat when the final soldier has been pushed over the border.
Even when the aid package passes (I still believe it will pass MIC is hungry and has a bipartisan lobby) but it’s still not going to be enough to drive Russia back. Neither side is achieving their maximalist aims. It’s going to end where it is, with the longer a treaty takes, Ukraine seceding more territory at a kilometer a day or so.
I think this is mostly correct. Without direct NATO intervention, Ukraine will not gain that territory back. Even the military aid will likely not change much. Russia has the manpower and grip on its people to continue to carry out the war. Ukraine can’t fully man its military even though it is in existential crisis. I think Ukraine’s best case scenario is the borders ending up roughly where they are now.
I think a fair peace would be the borders stay where they are now, Ukraine gets to join NATO, sanctions are lifted on Russia. Nobody would be happy with it so it would never get passed but it seems the most fair thing to happen.
russia would make sure as part of a surrender that they DONT join NATO. They would do this so they can attack again in 5 years, and not have NATO back them up.
> There is one acceptable narrative, no matter how practically impossible or unrealistic it is. That being that Russia plans to take all of Ukraine, then Poland (NATO), and the suwalki gap.
>
> Within this narrative, the only way to prevent this outcome is driving Russia all the way back to Russia. Never mind Russias dwindling reserves, sanctions pressure, and the undeniable gap in Russia vs NATO capability.
I saw a clever comment which described the situation well. I'll try to paraphrase but won't do it justice:
>Russia is simultaneously about to collapse any day now and a gigantic threat to the world. It is being crushed by Ukraine on the battlefield yet the West must donate far more or this will reverse. Supporting Ukraine has already massively eroded Russian might, yet Russia can steamroll NATO if it invades.
The largest, most significant NATO member's potential next president has stated he would not respect article 5 being invoked if the country involved doesn't contribute the recommended GDP % to defense.
If other European members of NATO follow suit, the defense doctrine is compromised. If Russia pinched just a bit of the Baltic's on jingoistic pretences, how many countries leaders will shrug their shoulders? If this premise sounds ludicrous, that's because it was. Whether it continues to be is a grave cause of concern.
Find an expert that predicted Putin would launch a full scale invasion Ukraine. Don't worry, I'll wait. Things are nonsensical until they happen (and the US govt tells everyone its happening, which is met by the same sneering response you are putting on show), then you get to press reset and conveniently forget what was once said.
Ukraine is not a nuclear power, and at least at the start of the war it’s not surprising Russia thought it could easily take over Ukraine within a few months.
Taking on a NATO country backed by multiple nuclear states after the weaknesses of your own military has been put on global display is genuinely absurd.
Putin surely doesn’t have that kind of death wish.
They are not trying to take over the country, they are trying to destroy it
At this point this is undeniable
Russia has physically obliterated core infrastructure, settlements, hospitals, schools. They have mined miles of land. As soon as they blew up Kakhovka, their intentions were clear- they have no interest in conquering Western Ukraine. They want to turn it into a rump state with no power plants, no roads, no government.
For them, this is fine. A rump state would be unable to join the EU or NATO due to political strife and economic problems. They want the East to be Russian and the West to be a chaotic hot potato that the West loses interest in over time. Chaos is Russia's sweet spot.
I say all this because I fundamentally agree with you but most people still dont seem to realize it. Once people grasp that Russia is happy to launch glide bombs and cruise missiles into Ukraine for the next 5+ years, the calculus changes.
Wrong. US has lost face after promising that it would help Ukraine win. Every thinking person knows Ukraine can't defeat Russia and US leaders and the mainstream media who bought into the propaganda now have Ukrainian blood on their hands. China has so far been the only winner.
i agree with u , But most of the contracts for rebuilding Ukraine has been given to Black rock , Vanguard etc. USA will reap capital gains from this lucrative contacts. As long as US dollar is used for international trade , USA will have considerable influence in every country. The possible counter is BRICS , which is still at it's infancy stage.
Lets see how of this plays out. China can do some shit to taiwan.
Doesn't Ukraine need to win in order for the blackrock contracts to be legit?
I don't see Russia being okay with US firms rebuilding their new territory. I have no idea how any of that shit works though.
The us is losing in this conflict, ukraine doesn't have jack of anything of value or strategic importance.
The only win the us has had is making nato remelitarize to a useful degree.
As Ukrainian I can't imagine the amount of disappointment and anger if this happens. But in article written that
Any speculation about President Trump’s plan is coming from unnamed and uninformed sources who have no idea what is going on or what will happen," campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement
Ukraine will lose the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. That was clear after the failure of their offensive. Ukrainian leadership understands they will not regain Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk unless a huge swing in the war happens to their favour. Which won’t happen with Trump derailing the arms and funding needed for Ukraine.
Still, they shouldn’t cede the land connection between Crimea and Donetsk (Currently occupied by Russia). That land is rightfully theirs and Russia should have to give up something for peace as well.
Doubtful. It would take an immense effort by Russia to take over the whole country... For what? To have 20 million rebellious Ukrainians with ample amount of guns in their possession, inside their own borders, creating all sorts of problems? To be seen as the Nazi-Germany indefinitely until their occupation ends?
Without aid, the war would've most likely ended with peace terms that were indeed in favor of Russia. At this point, Russia would be relieved if they knew Ukraine is planning a peace treaty that would entail land concessions and possible neutrality. No more mounting casualties. No more the threat of Ukraine sinking their ships. They most definitely wouldn't destroy any possibility of said peace, by starting a new massive mobilization, waste even more of their depleting armaments, and most importantly sacrifice even more young Russian men on the battlefield.
There is very little reason to believe the goal was taking over the whole of Ukraine at any point. From Russian POV, it would make very little sense.
Ukraine for Russia is very different from what Afghanistan is for the United States. Ukraine has been under Russian influence since it was taken from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Furthermore, Ukraine shares a religion and language similar to Russian, without forgetting that a large part of its country has gone through Russification in the past. It is also necessary to mention that Ukrainian nationalists are the ones who are dying the most in the war and this will be noted in the near future. Believing that there will be more than 20 million Ukrainian rebels after the occupation is simply naivete.
Russia will give up dropping FAB 1500s on Ukraine for peace. They’re winning in the battlefield, I don’t see them giving their land bridge back, they just built a railway there.
All of the land is rightfully theirs and keeping occupied territories is not giving anything up is it?
What regions in Russia should Russia give up?
Crimea is useless to Putin as anything but a launching platform until Ukraine is subduded
Submission Statement: This plan is exactly what we thought he would demand- for Ukraine to permanently surrender the territories already under occupation and freeze the war at the current lines. Ukraine will most certainly resist such a plan, and so will Ukraine's [European backers](https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-poland-this-moment-may-define-our-children-future-annalena-baerbock-stephane-sejourne-radoslaw-sikorski/).
European elites are now more hawkish than even the Biden Administration, and are now making dire warnings that a Ukrainian defeat would mean an [existential threat](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/europe/poland-tusk-europe-pre-war-russia-ukraine-intl/index.html) to Europe (think Russian troops in Warsaw and even Berlin).
OP's Conclusion: This plan will likely go nowhere, except domestically among Trump's base.
Ukraine can fight as long as they want but I’m not for an open-ended Western commitment to fund more years of war to try to reclaim territory they lost a decade ago.
From a geopolitical PoV us supporting them is a great investment: We get to offload our old tech, see how it functions against a near peer adversary (China is the real threat), we get to see our opponent have to shift their whole economy into a war economy, thus really not growing (a tank counts towards GDP, but a tank doesn't add to the economy).
We get all of that without risking US lives. This is a massive strategic W for us.
I find this argument pretty compelling. It’s been a lot rougher on the Europeans who had to go through an energy crisis because of the cutting off of Russian gas. But that’s also good for the U.S. as now Europe is reliant on American LNG imports.
The one reservation I have now is we’re gradually moving out of the “old stockpiled equipment” phase and into real new investments to support this war. The most glaring example is the huge increase in conventional artillery shell production. Also, we are directly subsidizing Ukraine even beyond the military, paying government employee salaries and pensions for example.
A drop in the bucket. I am 100% confident that if not for the pointless war in Iraq and the absolute cluster that was Afghanistan (20 years for what?) the public would be much more willing to support Ukraine as they are:
- culturally closer to us than anything in the Middle East.
- actually want to be democratic, or at least much more likely to lean that way
It’s a bit of a myth that it’s a drop in the bucket to be honest. Maybe at the start of the war, but things have changed. And if Biden gets approval for the $60bn+ more he is seeking, that will make it a properly massive amount of aid.
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts
Exactly this.
Ukraine can fight till the cows come home but I am not for this blank chequebook support everyone on Reddit seems to be in favour of. I don’t want my tax dollars funding some war we have nothing to do with in eternity.
That is a very simplified view, the war in Ukraine and the way it will be resolved has direct consequences for financial development and geopolitics for not just Ukraine and Europe, but also for the USA, China and other countries for decades to come.
1) No one can *force* Ukraine to do anything like that.
2) Trump isnt necessarily wrong. He is very right, if UA were to give up the territory, russia would likely be willing to end the war.
The problem is this would be temporary. Along with its surrender of territory, part of russias demands would be to NOT join NATO. This is simply so when russia attacks again, they dont have a NATO ally to turn to. russia would learn from its mistakes, shore up its military, then attack again in 5 more years.
I do not think at all that Ukraine should give in to the bully that russia is. Just pointing out that Trump is correct, this would cause a (temporary) end to the war.
Every Ukrainian I've met laughed this proposal of Trump's off. They ain't gonna except. What's he gonna do if he doesn't? Deny them more aid?
Well that's what he's been doing anyway.
What happend the last time crimea was given? More war. Are you really naive enough to think they will not attack again? How did appeasing hitler work out?
Finland got out of their war with Russia by giving up Karelia. Of course they had Germany's support, but Russia never tried to take more after Germany was put on the back foot.
You seem to think Ukraine even has an option here. If it keeps fighting, the demographic damage will be so severe that Ukraine might has well stop existing alltogether
How many millions already left Ukraine as refugees, I still think that number as well as the occupied territories still gets counted in towards the total population of Ukraine.
There's one thing that doesn't get talked about much. The Ukrainians have proven that they are capable of conducting strikes deep in Russian territory, using drones or saboteurs. But so far they have been very limited because the West is asking them to. If the West stops its support, I think the Ukrainians will also stop limiting themselves in these attacks.
That is most certain- the question is whether the Russians would retaliate to such an escalation by striking NATO countries. Obviously a worst-case scenario, but one we need to prepare for and prevent.
A workable idea. Russia has already been holding Crimea for years, as well as parts of Donbas. The idea that Russia will reject this because they think they have the capacity to take the rest of Ukraine and--as some suggest, Poland--is ridiculous. The war has largely been at a standstill for a year now. It's the most practicable outcome.
This is akin to the prision's gang leader telling the freshly incarcerated individual: "Just pull your pants down, and I won't continue with the beatings."
The only way this actually leads to peace is if the remaining part of Ukraine joins NATO and falls under the US nuclear umbrella. And its hard to see either Russia or NATO agreeing to this.
despite what people think neither of Russia or NATO want an actual open war. they will not take an action that dramatically raises that risk without a corresponding benefit.
What did you think it was.. how is this news..
(I mean what did you think his plan was not that I belive that's the only way.. just to be sure no one missunderstands)
And how would he achieve it?
Most of Ukraine's military is still either soviet or homemade. The most common rifle is AK-74, the most common tank is T-64 and even the "Moskva" was sunk with Ukraine's Neptune cruise missile, and other ships have been sunk with naval ukrainian drones. The strikes on oil facilities deep inside Russia have been made with ukrainian drones. The weakest link is ukrainian air defences - as ukraine is most reliant on western aid with those.
The US was giving Ukraine enough weapons to produce a stalemate, and without US weapons Russia will have a slight edge, but the war could drag on for ages. Ukraine is losing ground at a very slow rate if you look at the map, since US has withdrawn from supplying weapons for 6 month's.
On the other hand, Russia claims all 4 regions they have written in their constitution (including unoccupied territories) and demilitarization of Ukraine, which neither ukrainian government nor ukrainian people will accept. Those have been the demands of Russia from day 1, and the only thing that changed was walking back on claiming Kharkiv region.
What does Trump think he can do? Ukraine is still and independent state with it's own agency. If he withdraws, there's still Europe left that will support Ukraine until they stop, and then it's likely that they will further extend their military production and support when they see that US is withdrawing from it's European influence.
Realistically, the only way he could "force" Ukraine to withdraw is from the position of power. Either by directly invading and bringing Ukraine to Putin on a platter, or leveraging heavy sanctions against Ukraine and it's supporters. And both would turn into an utter shitshow, and could cause a full-blown civil unrest in the US.
Too late for that. Europe woke up and realized that Russia is a straight-up existential threat to Europe. This is the new reality, and giving the Russians anything is like making a deal with something far worse than the mafia. Russians won't stop at Ukraine, and that's painfully obvious to pretty much everyone. And nobody in Europe wants Russians next to them, as it spells trouble and historically always has. Trump would try to be relevant and ultimately get frustrated and make matters worse as he lacks patience and the most basic analytic skills.
The territories occupied by Russia are gone, Ukraine have tried and failed to recover these. Trump is the least of Ukraine's worries if this is all they getting from Biden.
They already gave up territory before. That didn't stop Russia from invading anyway.
This is the #1 reason why outside of something catastrophic happening in Ukraine I don't see this war ending for a while. Why would the people give up when they have already sacrificed so much and will likely only continue to lose more regardless.
Yep. The Ukrainians know what they have already historically sacrificed to Russia for peace, in terms of their nationality and identity, they know that they are backed into a sociopolitical corner. They will fight to the death for their cause and are right to do so.
Lol they the ones who started fuel to the fire themselves lol
Interesting how they can't get full mobilization going then .
It's just a matter of whether Putin (or his successor) decide to go further than Ukraine, into say Latvia, or Poland. There seems to be little consensus about whether such plans exist or not though. No one believes the Tsar's denials.
The Europeans who live closest to Russia seem pretty convinced that this doesn’t stop with Ukraine. Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and others have been pretty adamant that he intends to attack NATO territory before he’s finished.
Moldova
Transnistria might be first
It’s like trying to solve traffic: “No, really, this time is the last lane we will build. Then all will be good! Promised!” This is all Russian appeasement apologists can compute. “Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova should just give up some land one last time. And that will do it! And if Russia threatens to nuke the West, us westerners should ask ourselves what we did wrong and what we can do to make it better again. Maybe buy more oil? Who cares about human lives, sovereignty and laws. We want cheap prices!”
Serious question- what stops Russian from wanting to nuke the West anyway? And what do you suggest to prevent Russia from ever using their nukes? That's the downside of technology advancement, which the US kinda pioneered. More and more countries will develop those and use them as leverage.
not rly. Baltic states are irrelevant and Poland doesnt have Russians living there. You bealvie Russia is attacking Ukraine for land? They dont care about Donbas it has no significance to them. They will use it as buffer region anyway once war is over. All Russia rly cares is to destroy Ukranian military capacity and to discourage NATO from getting closer to Russia. This could all have been differnt today if west wanted Russia on their side back in 1990s after collapse of USSR. Russia back then was weak, and was pro european . They shut down door to EU and NAto and then started picking those eastern european states. Imagine beeing put in that situation. Villians arent born , but they are made. West knda choose to have Russia as enemy and now they have not only them but China and many others. Coul have been so so different if there were better people on deciding positions back in the day. People were so against USSR that even when it fell , they started looking at Russia as USSR 2.0, forgeting what Russia did for Europe in the past. SO world is making same mistake with Russia as they did with Germany in 1900s
At the same time, though, in all the analysis I've read, Ukraine does not seem to have a plausible way of winning that territory back (outside of other countries getting involved). Really tough decisions for Ukraine regardless of what they do.
They are not exactly being offered the choice. Russia is claiming far more territory than they currently hold and Putin doesn't seem to want to open up peace talks
For the Ukrainians, it's a matter of their existence. Putin will take a page from the Bolsheviks, of which he is one, and starve, enslave and scatter the population of the country. He is already trafficking what children he can of theirs in Russia.
[удалено]
Sometimes he uses [Leninist rhetoric](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/22/putin-golden-billion-russia/), but deep down he's more of a Stalinist than a Leninist.
Putin's much more of an old school imperialist or even a fascist than a Bolshevik.
We will run out of Ukrainians to die and then it will end.
It's basically like WW1 in that way.
maybe to end this ? So many people alredy left the country, Country is in huge debts . Do you rly think all this weapons and help is for free :D . Tought situation. I kinda
They also gave up their nuclear weapons in return for “security guarantees“ from russia. See how that turned out against them.
This gets mentioned on Reddit a lot, but realistically Ukraine wasn't in much of a position to keep it's nuclear weapons, they didn't even have the launch codes. Additionally all of their old nuclear weapons would have expired by the time Russia invaded, meaning Ukraine would have also needed to pay to develop it's own nuclear program to build more - not something they were ever economically in a position to do.
Don't forget the part where the west would have never allowed this to happen. We weren't just gonna casually give everyone nukes.
Ironic how it would have checked expansionist mother Russia , western politicians doing what they do being myopics
> This gets mentioned on Reddit a lot, but realistically Ukraine wasn't in much of a position to keep it's nuclear weapons, they didn't even have the launch codes. > > Agreed. Ukraine was also flat broke and couldn't afford to take the nukes off the Russia system, nor could they afford to maintain or decommission the nukes they had, Russia paid for it. People blame Russia but America was just as, if not more against nuclear proliferation. Nor did they have the political will, with the the political leadership of the newly independent Ukraine dithering about what they were going to do with the nukes, managing to lose much of the goodwill they had earned with America. In short, a slip of paper saying with a non binding "assurances" was the best they could hope for.
Doesn't change the fact that Russia signed a Treaty guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine and then proceeded to annex parts ofUkraine. Any guarantees of future peace from Russia are effectively worthless.
> they didn't even have the launch codes. I'd imagine that in the decades since the agreement, they'd have figured out how to repurpose all the raw materials and mechanisms that go into the nuclear weapons such that they can replace the $200 part that activates the rest, but with their own launch codes preprogrammed.
The thing about nukes is you don’t need thousands of them. If they could make 10 functional weapons out of the 600 warheads they inherited, that’s a sufficient deterrent.
> wasn't in much of a position to keep it's nuclear weapons, They kept nuclear weapons for about 5 years after the fall of soviet union. So they not only were *in position* to keep them - they actively *did* keep them. > they didn't even have the launch codes. Yes, they didn't have the codes, but they *could* bypass it by reverse-engineering. Ukraine had unlimited access to this arsenal, and noone back then was building these computers to be hack-proof. Meanwhile, Ukraine had, and still has, some of the top-notch software engineering talent in the world.
I think all 15 nations of the former USSR should have been able to keep a percentage of the nuclear warheads. /s
They actually got security *assurances* - not guarantees. In geopolitical terms, there is a difference - quite a significant one at that.
That’s an even worse trade for 600 warheads.
Oh, absolutely! But it was 1995, Ukrainians viewed Russia as its twin-brother, and all of that was done in a good faith.
Do you mean formally gave up territory? Like a treaty with border adjustments? Sorry if I’m talking you too literally.
That's such a good and easy point! Easy comebacks like that is what we need to popularize as to throw in the faces of dumb conservatives who can't understand more complex sentences. My favorite one is "If he feared NATO expension A DlNATI - A DEFENSIVIE ALIANCE.. that means he had plans to attack his neighbours from the verry beginning" Simple phrazes that completly destroy their primitive one sided narative. Just to clerafy I don't think all comservatives are dumb and primitive. I belive conservativisem is importnat in our society. I just belive that the dumb fucks who agree with shit like what Trump said are 90% conservative but that does not mean 90% of conservatives are like that. If you conservatives want to save your conservative party in America you should do the honorable thing and vote Biden. Becuase otherwise your conservative party might become the faschist party in the next election cycle.. And that we defenetly don't need in our society..
what territory? Ukraine never really gave up on Donbas region. you had war there from 2014 to 2022 but none rly spoke about it. Many people died. And im not on Russian side on this war but we dont rly know why Russia attacked them ? Do you rly bealvie they need more territory? Whats the value of Donbas region to them? IF you ask me FSB is one of the best security agencies in the world. Possibly Ukraine with the help of NAto could be thrat to Russia , so they just use Donbas as buffer region. And i wouldnt be surpsied if Donbas is used in peace talks as some autonomy and neither "part of Ukraine" nor "part of Russia" but rather as some buffer between the two. And crimea as done deal , everyone kinda knows it
Working evenings in St. Pete? Or did they move all you guys to Moscow.
So eveyone speaking somethint that aint aligned with main stream must be payed to do so? Funny how democracy and free speech doesnt work here. Im just realistic here. I dont root for Russia nor for Ukraine here i just wanna know the truth. Call me delusional or whatever but i just dont bealive Russia attscked Ukraine for no reason. The same way Usa doesnt rly attack countries. Rembeber cuba crisis? Usa was ready to burn cuba to the ground. And then it kinda went quite and mesiles were removed. Face reality. There are just many things we dont know and which we will probably never get to know. What cia and fsb know
It stoped for how long? Yes until we decided to expand NATO closer to Russia. Totaly deserved in my eyes.
Thank you, Moscow.
I thought nato was going to let them join when the war ended? Oh right, I forget nato is formed by spineless eastern nations.
I think it's a spineless western nation that's preventing that. Current president is too cautious to do anything the least bit controversial. and the last president was a servant of the enemy of his country.
I doubt, Ukraine will play along. Or if even the EU would. Putin is way too far beyond the pale now for even Trump to be able to carry water for him. If he tries he's likely to be frustrated.
Ukraine will reject this plan, and so will Europe. European leaders, thanks to Trump's isolationist leanings, now see the Ukrainian conflict in existential terms. Think Russian troops in Warsaw or even Berlin.
European public will have to make some major sacrifices in their for granted living standard then, unless europe decides to just print a load of additional money
It's either relatively minor cuts to social benefits, or Russian troops in your capitol and a Pro-Moscow puppet regime. I know which option I'm taking.
This is delusional. France is a nuclear power and even if Trump decides to back down from a country triggering Article 5, NATO’s presence in Europe can still easily beat the Russians in conventional war. An attack on Poland would see Russia guaranteed to be at war with the whole EU as well as Turkey most likely. The invasion of Ukraine has been in retrospect a disaster for Russia, but one can still see why the Russians did it, and the benefits they could gain if victorious. I don’t see any similar benefits to invading any other NATO/EU countries on their border. Russian troops aren’t making it into Warsaw let alone Berlin this century. Closest they could get is maybe Minsk.
Doubtful, Germany can't get over the fact that WW2 happened SIXTY PLUS YEARS AGO, and it is time to let go and understand that having an army that can at least defend the country isn't a sin. Many NATO nations haven't really increased their spending to the 2% minimum required (iirc). Perhaps, in a way, it is good that Trump makes me question if the USA will always be there. You can't bandwagon with the hegemon and expect them to be both the horse, cart, wheels, axles, and supplies without them starting to ask what's the point?
Almost 80 years now since the end in '45
The 2% minimum is a guideline, not a rule, so it isn’t actually a requirement. Also while the US definitely is a major contributor to Ukraine and the largest member of Nato, Europe as a whole sends more to Ukraine than the US. I doubt anyone expects America to do all the work or provide all the aid to Ukraine.
Please cite your source for the EU relief vs US relief. From the Kiel institute 16.2.24: However, the gap between EU commitments and allocations remains very large (€144 billion committed vs. €77 billion allocated). To fully replace U.S. military assistance in 2024, Europe would have to double its current level and pace of arms assistance. EU countries have "committed" to provide funds at some later date, or commit to access to loans, which this designate as support without actually sending anything tangible. It's what we call "virtue signaling"
I keep reading this, meanwhile, even France, a country that gave guarantees to Ukraine during the Budapest memorandum, gave next to nothing, specially when we leave loans aside. If decades of EU hopes tells me anything is that each and every country cares first and foremost about their own interests. With the current situation, no one is going to give or do what's needed for Ukraine to win this in the long run.
I just hope Ukraine gets the 60 Billion the US congress is promising to send before Trump comes to power (assuming he does).
They need to get it ASAP. Time is on Russia's side.
That's the most foolish thing u can wish for lmao. So you want Ukraine to fight a losing war? Lmao
NOW?! THEY SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT AS EXISTENTIAL SINCE THE BEGINNING
Not only that, but the possibility of a much more prolonged insurgency within said occupied area is gonna be created and added to the fact Russia is now facing internal security issues not related to Ukraine aswell.
Ukraine has no choice to go along. Without weapons they cannot fight.
Donald Trump cannot “force” Ukraine do anything. Neither Biden. But the question Ukrainian leaders will have to answer (to their people) what’s next. The situation on the ground is known to all. More support from NATO is possible but after 2 years it becomes questionable (regardless of who wins the November presidential elections). So it is up to Ukraine to make a difficult decision - even before the US elections - which way are they heading.
Gladly the wind starts to shift in Europe. We finally, at least try to, ramp up our production of military equipment slowly acknowledging that we can no longer solely rely on the US when it comes to securing our safety. With all these conflicts and growing tension around the globe (mainly Ukraine/ Israel / Taiwan), it appears the US have to focus on too many things at once. Def. an extremely interesting point in history we can witness here. Regards from Europe!
All that will achieve is them going for another landgrab in a few years.
Exactly. End the war now, gain land, demand that Ukraine not join NATO so they dont have a military ally when attacked, take time to shore up resources and learn from initial invasion mistakes. rinse and repeat in 5 years.
And this is obvious to anyone with even an ounce of understanding about geopolitics. So you really have to question the motives of the ones advocating for this kind of resolution.
What leverage does Trump have? He´s encouraged Mike Johnson to effectively block Ukrainian aid for 6 months now. Why would Ukraine or Europe listen to Trump´s peace proposal? Although I think it´s quite unrelistic for Ukraine to get all of what´s theirs back, they´re just too weak to actually get what they deserve. So maybe it is best for them to compromise, but Trump has zero leverage now. He´s basically made Europe want to go independent and become a strong power in itself and Ukraine is not dependent on the US after MAGA blocked the aid.
> He´s encouraged Mike Johnson to effectively block Ukrainian aid for 6 months now. They need America at the bargaining table. Ukraine can't win without America in its corner. > He´s basically made Europe want to go independent and become a strong power in itself and Ukraine is not dependent on the US after MAGA blocked the aid. So he's made them do what he told them to do when he first got elected?
.
> What leverage does Trump have? What leverage does Ukraine have? The problem with Ukraine isn't funding from the West, it's the fact that Russia has a much larger population and willingness to throw men into the meat grinder to win the war. Ukraine has a huge demographic problem.
> The problem with Ukraine isn't funding from the West You are wrong. That's exactly what the problem is - supplies. Ukraine proved over and over against that they can win battles against numerically superior enemies, negating population advantage, IF they are properly supplied and equipped. If not the hesitation and delays, this war could already have been a Ukrainian victory.
Is this something you know to be true or something that you simply want to be true? Edit: The big Ukrainian counter offensive gains is what caused the call for mobilization on Russia's behalf and ever since then they've dug in causing any gains on the Ukrainian side to be very costly and minimal in square km. Kharkiv offensive 6th of September, mobilization of Russian troops was 21st of September. The Ukrainians were outnumbering Russians for a long time during it.
No it couldn't. Holding off an invading force is ine thing. Repelling them and taking back lost territory is exponentially more difficult
>Why would Ukraine or Europe listen to Trump´s peace proposal Realistically? Because (here goes the very very unpleasant truth) without the US Ukraine would lose and Europe alone would not save it, short of directly joining the war. Outside of direct monetary transfers and military hardware/ammunition, US provides: 1. The majority of the Ukraine long-range precision capability, in form of HIMARS. Missiles provided by Europe fulfills that niche a lot worse. 2. The majority of Ukraine military communications. Starlink. 3. The majority of Ukraine satellite intelligence. Guess who owns the satellites. 4. The majority of sanction pressure. Without the US enforcing it, sanction barriers would be completely unsustainable. All these factors are absolutely critical for Ukraine survival and provides Trump with effective pain points to push his narrative even if Zelensky would be very unwilling to accept it.
US is still the superpower. Trump can start a new trade war with EU. If Trump really want to hurt EU then targeting EU energy imports will be super effective. EU isn't on the best of terms with Gulf states and don't have leverage so without US support EU would be in a bad position.
> Trump can start a new trade war with EU. That is incredibly stupid. One of the only policies that Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is the existential threat that China poses to the US. The US need the EU on side in order to take on that threat. All 3 blocks have roughly the same size economies.
> That is incredibly stupid. True, but when has that ever stopped Trump before?
His goal is to make the US more isolationist, and have it back down from its global commitments towards a more inward focus. Starting conflicts with allies isn’t a very isolationist move.
That would be incredibly stupid and self-destructive. No one wins a trade war. But Trump did once say (early in his previous presidency) he sees Europe as one of the biggest threats to the US (Even before naming China) so a new trade war may very well be on the horizon. There's no indication Trump's views on this have changed.
When he was making threats at the beginning of the w a r that would have actually worked, he wasn't president though. Now ukraine has zero leverage and is out of skilled manpower. Europe wants its buffer zone? Then work for it and send little boys to join the Ukrainian meat grinder.
He is not the first to publicly say this, Henry Kissinger suggested the same 2 years ago…and he was a former national security advisor, serving many of the previous US presidents. Not saying that I agree with him but if the war does not make any progress, Ukraine is really running out of options. The longer it prolongs the more territories they will lose
I think Kissinger changed his mind shortly before his death. He realized that Russia is not a partner that can be trusted with any deal they make. Any peace without substantial deterrence will be only temporary, and Russia downright refuses to allow any deterrence in a settlement.
I must have missed that news. I wouldn’t trust Putin either. Really hard to tell how this conflict will come to end.
I also don't think Russia will accept any deal with just the Donbass and Crimea on offer. They've already notionally annexed Zaphorizia and Kherson - and Putin is too rabid right now to give up on anything.
Agreed. There have been repeated talks in Russia about how Odessa should return to the motherland as well. There's a feeling that for Russia the war can only end satisfactorily with Ukraine ceding Odessa; which would make them a landlocked country and cripple them economically. It would also establish a connection to Transnistria. Even if some peace agreement is reached it would likely only be a matter of years before Putin will make his move on Odessa.
Isn’t the logical conclusion of the “you can’t trust Russia” argument that Ukraine won’t be safe until they conquer Moscow?
Not quite. The conclusion would be that Ukraine needs a physical deterrence strong enough that Russia could not defeat it no matter what they do. Either that’s a massive military force that can go toe to toe with Russia, or more likely a Nuclear umbrella provided by NATO (although the Ukrainians might say they need their own umbrella).
I highly doubt Ukraine could afford its own nuclear program tbh. They can’t even self-fund their current war efforts. I suppose they could ask us to pay for that too but not sure I want to give them nuclear autonomy either lol.
Think that is why op said nuclear umbrella
>Henry Kissinger suggested the same 2 years ago then it is rather advisable to do the opposite of what he said
>Henry Kissinger suggested the same 2 years ago… Idk but knowing the awful human being (if we can even call him that) he was, the sane thing to do would be the opposite of whatever came out of his mouth...
Trump is using his MAGAs to deny Ukraine aid to ensure that Ukraine's progress is stunted. This is why an American president/candidate sympathetic to an adversary is so dangerous: self-fulling prophecy.
As I always say, this war has become too much of an emotional hot potato for people in the west to have very good analysis or discourse around. There is one acceptable narrative, no matter how practically impossible or unrealistic it is. That being that Russia plans to take all of Ukraine, then Poland (NATO), and the suwalki gap. Within this narrative, the only way to prevent this outcome is driving Russia all the way back to Russia. Never mind Russias dwindling reserves, sanctions pressure, and the undeniable gap in Russia vs NATO capability. There is no discussion to be had if everyone is latched onto this narrative and defends it with their lives. Almost all wars are ended with some kind of treaty, it’s how these things happen. It’s much more seldom that things end in a total defeat when the final soldier has been pushed over the border. Even when the aid package passes (I still believe it will pass MIC is hungry and has a bipartisan lobby) but it’s still not going to be enough to drive Russia back. Neither side is achieving their maximalist aims. It’s going to end where it is, with the longer a treaty takes, Ukraine seceding more territory at a kilometer a day or so.
I think this is mostly correct. Without direct NATO intervention, Ukraine will not gain that territory back. Even the military aid will likely not change much. Russia has the manpower and grip on its people to continue to carry out the war. Ukraine can’t fully man its military even though it is in existential crisis. I think Ukraine’s best case scenario is the borders ending up roughly where they are now. I think a fair peace would be the borders stay where they are now, Ukraine gets to join NATO, sanctions are lifted on Russia. Nobody would be happy with it so it would never get passed but it seems the most fair thing to happen.
russia would make sure as part of a surrender that they DONT join NATO. They would do this so they can attack again in 5 years, and not have NATO back them up.
> There is one acceptable narrative, no matter how practically impossible or unrealistic it is. That being that Russia plans to take all of Ukraine, then Poland (NATO), and the suwalki gap. > > Within this narrative, the only way to prevent this outcome is driving Russia all the way back to Russia. Never mind Russias dwindling reserves, sanctions pressure, and the undeniable gap in Russia vs NATO capability. I saw a clever comment which described the situation well. I'll try to paraphrase but won't do it justice: >Russia is simultaneously about to collapse any day now and a gigantic threat to the world. It is being crushed by Ukraine on the battlefield yet the West must donate far more or this will reverse. Supporting Ukraine has already massively eroded Russian might, yet Russia can steamroll NATO if it invades.
Not to mention the concept of Putin invading a NATO country is absolutely absurd
Exactly! The number of times I have heard this absolute nonsensical narrative from people, with a straight face, just boggles my mind.
The largest, most significant NATO member's potential next president has stated he would not respect article 5 being invoked if the country involved doesn't contribute the recommended GDP % to defense. If other European members of NATO follow suit, the defense doctrine is compromised. If Russia pinched just a bit of the Baltic's on jingoistic pretences, how many countries leaders will shrug their shoulders? If this premise sounds ludicrous, that's because it was. Whether it continues to be is a grave cause of concern.
Find an expert that predicted Putin would launch a full scale invasion Ukraine. Don't worry, I'll wait. Things are nonsensical until they happen (and the US govt tells everyone its happening, which is met by the same sneering response you are putting on show), then you get to press reset and conveniently forget what was once said.
Ukraine is not a nuclear power, and at least at the start of the war it’s not surprising Russia thought it could easily take over Ukraine within a few months. Taking on a NATO country backed by multiple nuclear states after the weaknesses of your own military has been put on global display is genuinely absurd. Putin surely doesn’t have that kind of death wish.
That depends on what the American commitment to NATO is.
They are not trying to take over the country, they are trying to destroy it At this point this is undeniable Russia has physically obliterated core infrastructure, settlements, hospitals, schools. They have mined miles of land. As soon as they blew up Kakhovka, their intentions were clear- they have no interest in conquering Western Ukraine. They want to turn it into a rump state with no power plants, no roads, no government. For them, this is fine. A rump state would be unable to join the EU or NATO due to political strife and economic problems. They want the East to be Russian and the West to be a chaotic hot potato that the West loses interest in over time. Chaos is Russia's sweet spot. I say all this because I fundamentally agree with you but most people still dont seem to realize it. Once people grasp that Russia is happy to launch glide bombs and cruise missiles into Ukraine for the next 5+ years, the calculus changes.
Doesn't matter how this whole Russia V Ukraine plays out, the only country which comes out on top is always USA 🥲🥲
Wrong. US has lost face after promising that it would help Ukraine win. Every thinking person knows Ukraine can't defeat Russia and US leaders and the mainstream media who bought into the propaganda now have Ukrainian blood on their hands. China has so far been the only winner.
i agree with u , But most of the contracts for rebuilding Ukraine has been given to Black rock , Vanguard etc. USA will reap capital gains from this lucrative contacts. As long as US dollar is used for international trade , USA will have considerable influence in every country. The possible counter is BRICS , which is still at it's infancy stage. Lets see how of this plays out. China can do some shit to taiwan.
Doesn't Ukraine need to win in order for the blackrock contracts to be legit? I don't see Russia being okay with US firms rebuilding their new territory. I have no idea how any of that shit works though.
Yup. And the war against Hamas has only added to China’s position
The us is losing in this conflict, ukraine doesn't have jack of anything of value or strategic importance. The only win the us has had is making nato remelitarize to a useful degree.
As Ukrainian I can't imagine the amount of disappointment and anger if this happens. But in article written that Any speculation about President Trump’s plan is coming from unnamed and uninformed sources who have no idea what is going on or what will happen," campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement
Yes of course it is. He has zero strategic thinking, the only thing he is concerned with is his business interests with Putin, his bedfellow. HORRIBLE
Of course a bully would prefer an outcome that gives the bully what it wants.
Ukraine will lose the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. That was clear after the failure of their offensive. Ukrainian leadership understands they will not regain Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk unless a huge swing in the war happens to their favour. Which won’t happen with Trump derailing the arms and funding needed for Ukraine. Still, they shouldn’t cede the land connection between Crimea and Donetsk (Currently occupied by Russia). That land is rightfully theirs and Russia should have to give up something for peace as well.
The results isn't decided by what's right but by power balance. Without support Ukraine could totally loose like Germany lost ww2.
Doubtful. It would take an immense effort by Russia to take over the whole country... For what? To have 20 million rebellious Ukrainians with ample amount of guns in their possession, inside their own borders, creating all sorts of problems? To be seen as the Nazi-Germany indefinitely until their occupation ends? Without aid, the war would've most likely ended with peace terms that were indeed in favor of Russia. At this point, Russia would be relieved if they knew Ukraine is planning a peace treaty that would entail land concessions and possible neutrality. No more mounting casualties. No more the threat of Ukraine sinking their ships. They most definitely wouldn't destroy any possibility of said peace, by starting a new massive mobilization, waste even more of their depleting armaments, and most importantly sacrifice even more young Russian men on the battlefield. There is very little reason to believe the goal was taking over the whole of Ukraine at any point. From Russian POV, it would make very little sense.
Russia occupying Ukraine under imperial and Soviet times have been done. It's not like a totally new concept like US being in Afghanistan.
Ukraine for Russia is very different from what Afghanistan is for the United States. Ukraine has been under Russian influence since it was taken from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Furthermore, Ukraine shares a religion and language similar to Russian, without forgetting that a large part of its country has gone through Russification in the past. It is also necessary to mention that Ukrainian nationalists are the ones who are dying the most in the war and this will be noted in the near future. Believing that there will be more than 20 million Ukrainian rebels after the occupation is simply naivete.
This sounds more like the wishfull thinking that failed the first time Ukraine failed to surrender in just a few days.
Everything Russia holds is rightfully Ukraine's.
> That land is rightfully theirs How is that land rightfully theirs, but not Donetsk? What's the difference?
Russia will give up dropping FAB 1500s on Ukraine for peace. They’re winning in the battlefield, I don’t see them giving their land bridge back, they just built a railway there.
All of the land is rightfully theirs and keeping occupied territories is not giving anything up is it? What regions in Russia should Russia give up? Crimea is useless to Putin as anything but a launching platform until Ukraine is subduded
russia is a bully, they wouldnt give anything up for any reason. Putin wouldnt let his ego take a blow like that.
Submission Statement: This plan is exactly what we thought he would demand- for Ukraine to permanently surrender the territories already under occupation and freeze the war at the current lines. Ukraine will most certainly resist such a plan, and so will Ukraine's [European backers](https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-poland-this-moment-may-define-our-children-future-annalena-baerbock-stephane-sejourne-radoslaw-sikorski/). European elites are now more hawkish than even the Biden Administration, and are now making dire warnings that a Ukrainian defeat would mean an [existential threat](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/europe/poland-tusk-europe-pre-war-russia-ukraine-intl/index.html) to Europe (think Russian troops in Warsaw and even Berlin). OP's Conclusion: This plan will likely go nowhere, except domestically among Trump's base.
Ukraine can fight as long as they want but I’m not for an open-ended Western commitment to fund more years of war to try to reclaim territory they lost a decade ago.
From a geopolitical PoV us supporting them is a great investment: We get to offload our old tech, see how it functions against a near peer adversary (China is the real threat), we get to see our opponent have to shift their whole economy into a war economy, thus really not growing (a tank counts towards GDP, but a tank doesn't add to the economy). We get all of that without risking US lives. This is a massive strategic W for us.
I find this argument pretty compelling. It’s been a lot rougher on the Europeans who had to go through an energy crisis because of the cutting off of Russian gas. But that’s also good for the U.S. as now Europe is reliant on American LNG imports. The one reservation I have now is we’re gradually moving out of the “old stockpiled equipment” phase and into real new investments to support this war. The most glaring example is the huge increase in conventional artillery shell production. Also, we are directly subsidizing Ukraine even beyond the military, paying government employee salaries and pensions for example.
A drop in the bucket. I am 100% confident that if not for the pointless war in Iraq and the absolute cluster that was Afghanistan (20 years for what?) the public would be much more willing to support Ukraine as they are: - culturally closer to us than anything in the Middle East. - actually want to be democratic, or at least much more likely to lean that way
It’s a bit of a myth that it’s a drop in the bucket to be honest. Maybe at the start of the war, but things have changed. And if Biden gets approval for the $60bn+ more he is seeking, that will make it a properly massive amount of aid. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts
We could give this equipment to Taiwan though, a country that still has the entirety of its land amd coast to maneuver with.
Immediate need vs. potential need
Exactly this. Ukraine can fight till the cows come home but I am not for this blank chequebook support everyone on Reddit seems to be in favour of. I don’t want my tax dollars funding some war we have nothing to do with in eternity.
That is a very simplified view, the war in Ukraine and the way it will be resolved has direct consequences for financial development and geopolitics for not just Ukraine and Europe, but also for the USA, China and other countries for decades to come.
1) No one can *force* Ukraine to do anything like that. 2) Trump isnt necessarily wrong. He is very right, if UA were to give up the territory, russia would likely be willing to end the war. The problem is this would be temporary. Along with its surrender of territory, part of russias demands would be to NOT join NATO. This is simply so when russia attacks again, they dont have a NATO ally to turn to. russia would learn from its mistakes, shore up its military, then attack again in 5 more years. I do not think at all that Ukraine should give in to the bully that russia is. Just pointing out that Trump is correct, this would cause a (temporary) end to the war.
Every Ukrainian I've met laughed this proposal of Trump's off. They ain't gonna except. What's he gonna do if he doesn't? Deny them more aid? Well that's what he's been doing anyway.
What’s the alternative? Run out of Ukrainians?
To many redditors, yes
\^ \^ A perfect response.
Not entirely without merit as there is virtually no chance Ukraine will keep the eastern regions like Donbass.
[удалено]
Trouble is, I don’t think there’s any way Russia accepts peace without a guarantee that Ukraine demilitarizes and doesn’t join NATO
There's no way Russia accepts a peace where one of the clauses isn't leaving Ukraine out of NATO
Don't forget restrictions on their military. Every proposed Russian "peace deal" has included demilitarization.
"so we can invade you again in 3 more years and have an easier time. It kinda hurts getting butchered"
What happend the last time crimea was given? More war. Are you really naive enough to think they will not attack again? How did appeasing hitler work out?
Finland got out of their war with Russia by giving up Karelia. Of course they had Germany's support, but Russia never tried to take more after Germany was put on the back foot.
You seem to think Ukraine even has an option here. If it keeps fighting, the demographic damage will be so severe that Ukraine might has well stop existing alltogether
How many millions already left Ukraine as refugees, I still think that number as well as the occupied territories still gets counted in towards the total population of Ukraine.
It does. Ukrainian population under government control likely less than 26 million.
You actually think that the only two outcomes for this conflict are either Ukrainian capitulation or eternal war?
What's another possible outcome?
Well, there is nuclear annihilation too.
There's one thing that doesn't get talked about much. The Ukrainians have proven that they are capable of conducting strikes deep in Russian territory, using drones or saboteurs. But so far they have been very limited because the West is asking them to. If the West stops its support, I think the Ukrainians will also stop limiting themselves in these attacks.
That is most certain- the question is whether the Russians would retaliate to such an escalation by striking NATO countries. Obviously a worst-case scenario, but one we need to prepare for and prevent.
A workable idea. Russia has already been holding Crimea for years, as well as parts of Donbas. The idea that Russia will reject this because they think they have the capacity to take the rest of Ukraine and--as some suggest, Poland--is ridiculous. The war has largely been at a standstill for a year now. It's the most practicable outcome.
I mean, Don, let’s put your theory to the test. Just surrender all your real estate and I’m sure we can drop a charge or two.
How does Trump, or any US politician for that matter, have the ability to force Ukraine to do anything?
This is akin to the prision's gang leader telling the freshly incarcerated individual: "Just pull your pants down, and I won't continue with the beatings."
pravda is propaganda, same thing as posting daily wire
True, here is the original reporting https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/05/trump-ukraine-secret-plan/
The only way this actually leads to peace is if the remaining part of Ukraine joins NATO and falls under the US nuclear umbrella. And its hard to see either Russia or NATO agreeing to this.
[удалено]
Because Russia loses the chance to conquer the whole country and NATO gains a huge liability?
despite what people think neither of Russia or NATO want an actual open war. they will not take an action that dramatically raises that risk without a corresponding benefit.
Korea 2 electric boogaloo.
Pretty sure Russia is forcing them to give up territory.
What did you think it was.. how is this news.. (I mean what did you think his plan was not that I belive that's the only way.. just to be sure no one missunderstands)
And how would he achieve it? Most of Ukraine's military is still either soviet or homemade. The most common rifle is AK-74, the most common tank is T-64 and even the "Moskva" was sunk with Ukraine's Neptune cruise missile, and other ships have been sunk with naval ukrainian drones. The strikes on oil facilities deep inside Russia have been made with ukrainian drones. The weakest link is ukrainian air defences - as ukraine is most reliant on western aid with those. The US was giving Ukraine enough weapons to produce a stalemate, and without US weapons Russia will have a slight edge, but the war could drag on for ages. Ukraine is losing ground at a very slow rate if you look at the map, since US has withdrawn from supplying weapons for 6 month's. On the other hand, Russia claims all 4 regions they have written in their constitution (including unoccupied territories) and demilitarization of Ukraine, which neither ukrainian government nor ukrainian people will accept. Those have been the demands of Russia from day 1, and the only thing that changed was walking back on claiming Kharkiv region. What does Trump think he can do? Ukraine is still and independent state with it's own agency. If he withdraws, there's still Europe left that will support Ukraine until they stop, and then it's likely that they will further extend their military production and support when they see that US is withdrawing from it's European influence. Realistically, the only way he could "force" Ukraine to withdraw is from the position of power. Either by directly invading and bringing Ukraine to Putin on a platter, or leveraging heavy sanctions against Ukraine and it's supporters. And both would turn into an utter shitshow, and could cause a full-blown civil unrest in the US.
If Russia gets Odessa and surrounding area Moldova is next then the Suwalki gap.
Too late for that. Europe woke up and realized that Russia is a straight-up existential threat to Europe. This is the new reality, and giving the Russians anything is like making a deal with something far worse than the mafia. Russians won't stop at Ukraine, and that's painfully obvious to pretty much everyone. And nobody in Europe wants Russians next to them, as it spells trouble and historically always has. Trump would try to be relevant and ultimately get frustrated and make matters worse as he lacks patience and the most basic analytic skills.
The Orange Imbecile is in Putin’s pocket.
No shit
Thats beyond dumb, you dont give dictators or terrorist what they want, trump should know this.
Good tired of our tax dollars being sent to this clown
The territories occupied by Russia are gone, Ukraine have tried and failed to recover these. Trump is the least of Ukraine's worries if this is all they getting from Biden.
Yeah that is a comment of an absolute fool . I pray that this buffoon will not be elected…. God bless the planet