Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[Vyor]

Guess what? Thats how it works in war. First you get the easy terms and as time goes on those terms get worse and worse. Ukraine rejected the early terms. Now they get worse and worse.

That is just not true?

 

[Zachowon]

Guess what? Thats how it works in war. First you get the easy terms and as time goes on those terms get worse and worse. Ukraine rejected the early terms. Now they get worse and worse.

Now lets compare this to the terms for russia, which calls for the complete withdrawal of all russian forces from territory claimed by ukraine, the russian leadership being put on trial and the transfer of control of russia's energy sector to western interests.

That isn't how it works at all.
You don't make negotiations worse as the war goes.

 

[ATP]

That isn't how it works at all.
You don't make negotiations worse as the war goes.

Unless you win.Moscov could dictate their terms - IF they take Kiev and destroyed ukrainian army.
Which still could happen - IF USA gave Ukraine to Moscov.

 

[Poe]

That isn't how it works at all.
You don't make negotiations worse as the war goes.

You do if you become only more confident in victory, which Russia has

 

[AnimalNoodles]

That isn't how it works at all.
You don't make negotiations worse as the war goes.

You think the terms are going to be the same after such brutal fighting? Nope. Even now, if Kiev came to the table the terms will be much worse than the initial treaty. And when Russia wins, the terms will be unconditional surrender.

 

[Bacle]

We have a possible Prigozhin sighting; no one's actually confirmed his death so far, Russia just acted like he was on the plane.

Edit: And Macron has made it clear, there is not point negotiating with Putin anymore.

 

[Marduk]

You think the terms are going to be the same after such brutal fighting? Nope. Even now, if Kiev came to the table the terms will be much worse than the initial treaty. And when Russia wins, the terms will be unconditional surrender.

Did you even read this? The terms are unconditional surrender now, combined with annexation, and to add insult to injury, demanding third parties to rubberstamp this too.

I was saying since this started that Russia will try to "go in for the kill" eventually, in one way or another, whether some deals or treaties are made or not, but now they made it somewhat official, open, and direct.

 

[mrttao]

This is from Medvedev's mouth, these are Russia's demands, and it is not some 'tiny slice', and is completely detached from reality. This is why negotiating with Putin's Russia is farce in this conflict.

@Rocinante, @Terthna, @mrttao I tried to tell you, do you believe me now, now that Medvedev himself is saying it?

We owe @Zachowon a lot for actually calling shit out for us as early as he did, and @Marduk from being able to dissect the Russian psy-ops so well.

> I tried to tell you
Stop strawmanning

Putin, like every ruler in history, dreams of ruling the entire world.
The issue is one of feasibility.

Your side always talks about "putin's ambitions".
Our side always talked about "putin's threat"
People said Russia is not a threat to us. Not because Putin does not dreams he was god emperor of the world
(same dream biden, soros, and every slimy oligarch have every night)

But because of the feasibility of russia ever getting anywhere near us.
Putin is going to stall, die of old age, and then russia will balkanize again and collapse under corruption.

meanwhile we are too sick and ill to project power internationally. our current focus should be towards fighting the swamp. Who are the greatest threat to us.

=====

Which is a clear contradiction of what I said. And what I said is clearly that there are so many bigger threats than putin.

Roughly in order (but not exactly)
CIA, FBI, ATF, IRS, NSA, WEF, tech cartels (especially google), oligarchs, Soros, Gates, obama, woke cult, entire Demonrat party, 90% of RINOcuck party,USA communists, teachers union, K12 education, liberal inquisition in universities, child groomers, ADL (antisemite development league), USPS union, trans trenders, feminism, LGBTQP, banks, mexican drug cartels entering the USA, mass migration, child traffickers, and many more are existential threats inside the USA that take vastly higher priority than putin.

then outside the USA the biggest threats in exact order are:
1. EU
2. Cadana (totalitarian commie country with near parity that shares a border. very close ties to CCP)
3. UK (soon to be a muslim state with nukes)
4. france (soon to be a muslim state with nukes)...
5. australia (communists part of the globalist alliance. armed with modern USA weaponry. mass importing CCP citizens)
6. china
7. maybe russia. possibly I forgot a few bigger threats that rank above it. Putin himself ranks 1 spot below russia since russia might possibly flourish after he passes of old age.

Putin is so far down the list of threats it is not even funny.
Putin dreams of world domination, same as 99% of all govt officials and oligarchs.
But he has less than one in a million chance of ever threatening the USA before he dies of old age and Russia fractures.

him being a bone stuck in the throats of the WEF globalists is potentially even to our favor. As they spend their resources fighting him instead of oppressing us.
Although it might potentially not be, as it also seems to have sent a bunch of neocons into a tizzy and made them turn on those who would be their allies against the real threats which I listed above.

===
Ukraine should have signed the peace treaty they negotiated before and then immediately joined NATO.

Instead they fought to the bitter end, and are now losing.
Russia will end up seizing the whole country. Because they suddenly found themselves with an unexpected opportunity.
The west is exhausted and weak, and Ukraine is a spent force.

At the end of the day, Putin dreams of being god emperor. Same as macron, same as obama, same as biden, same as every single member of the demon rat party. Same as the CEO of google.
Realistically, he is not going to threaten USA. He will die of old age soon. And is too far behind China.

 

[Marduk]

> I tried to tell you
Stop strawmanning

=====

===
Ukraine should have signed the peace treaty they negotiated before and then immediately joined NATO.

That may work in a poorly coded strategy game, but not in reality.
In reality Russia would have used what pull it still has in western countries to slow the already challenging bureaucratic process (look how long it took Sweden with its relatively smaller controversy) and use it as an excuse to invade before this happens.
So moot point, this was never a real option.

Instead they fought to the bitter end, and are now losing.
Russia will end up seizing the whole country. Because they suddenly found themselves with an unexpected opportunity.
The west is exhausted and weak, and Ukraine is a spent force.

Doomdoomdoom.jpg

 

[Poe]

That may work in a poorly coded strategy game, but not in reality.
In reality Russia would have used what pull it still has in western countries to slow the already challenging bureaucratic process (look how long it took Sweden with its relatively smaller controversy) and use it as an excuse to invade before this happens.
So moot point, this was never a real option.

Doomdoomdoom.jpg

denial isn't just a river in egypt. If the Russians occupy Lviv you and a dozen others here will be laughing at how terrible they're performing and discussing how hilarious its gonna be once the Ukrainians kick them out. Meanwhile today Ukraine and the west aren't laughing because Russia is winning and has a real shot at taking large chunks of Ukraine.

 

[Marduk]

denial isn't just a river in egypt. If the Russians occupy Lviv you and a dozen others here will be laughing at how terrible they're performing and discussing how hilarious its gonna be once the Ukrainians kick them out.

"Winning" at a WW1 scale of "winning". It's pure propaganda winning, the "victories" on the ground are in the style of "we moved the frontline a dozen miles or two and took a small city we fought for over a year, and it cost us a couple divisions worth of infantry and armored vehicles".
With that kind of "winning", they will run out of Soviet legacy equipment long before Ukraine runs out of land.
There's a reason why they are digging into increasingly older and shittier models of Soviet vehicles and show them off on the frontline...
I think a lot of people who agree with Russian victory propaganda need to look up the definition of "Pyrrhic victory" and then check out their documented losses.

Meanwhile today Ukraine and the west aren't laughing because Russia is winning and has a real shot at taking large chunks of Ukraine.

Yeah, sure, Russia is just about to finally pull off proper maneuver warfare with troops worse equipped and more conscript heavy than what they had in early war and take large chunks of Ukraine with it, Kyiv in 3 days.
While Russia may have had the troops capable of that for first few months (with good circumstances and reasonable ambitions), most of them are dead now, and their units too saturated with half trained volunteers, ex-cons and conscripts as opposed to career soldiers with years of training at maneuver warfare and experience in major exercises involving it, so it's 90% that it would be a worse shitshow than the Kyiv run at the start if they tried.
Or alternatively do you expect them to suddenly take large chunks of Ukraine while continuing fucking trench warfare, despite the fact that both in this war and historically, trench warfare generally results in, well, at best small victories with pricetags of unreasonable proportion?

 

[LordsFire]

I just do not get why some people keep thinking that even if Russia is winning, the war is supposedly close to ending.

Yes, if you only start counting since the end of the Kherson offensive, the Russians have had more territorial gains in their offensives than the Ukrainians have had in theirs. By how many dozen square miles, in a nation with almost a quarter million square miles of territory?

So you don't believe the OSINT loss figures. I think that's kind of silly, but okay, let's operate on that assumption. If you're not believing the OSINT figures, I'm assuming you also don't trust the Ukrainian official numbers, American intelligence's estimates, any Euro estimates, etc. That leaves just the Russian numbers, which have been proven blatantly false by things like them claiming to have destroyed equipment that wasn't even in Ukraine yet, and more than was ever in the nation of stuff that is there, so obviously you aren't trusting those either, right?

So you have no reliable data at all on losses, and territorial exchanges are going on at a crawl, certainly nowhere near fast enough for the war any time in the next decade, much less the next year.


So where are you getting the idea that Russian victory is in any way imminent, or in any way inevitable?

 

[strunkenwhite]

Guess what? Thats how it works in war. First you get the easy terms and as time goes on those terms get worse and worse. Ukraine rejected the early terms. Now they get worse and worse.

Now lets compare this to the terms for russia, which calls for the complete withdrawal of all russian forces from territory claimed by ukraine, the russian leadership being put on trial and the transfer of control of russia's energy sector to western interests.

Increasingly harsh terms as war goes on isn't unprecedented but certainly isn't so normal that "how it works" is a reasonable characterization. The examples that spring to mind are total wars, especially where one side has gained the upper hand and is clearly on a trajectory to crushing the other side by brute force.

The US Civil War started with "get back in the union!" and ended with "No more slaves, and also you have forfeited your right to congressional representation until you ratify these three constitutional amendments." It was always a total war in the sense that the Union would not accept Confederate independence, and terms got harsher as the war hardened Northern opinions against the Southern institution of slavery.

Contrast with the War of 1812, where the final resolution was pretty much literally "status quo ante bellum" with the caveat that some of the major gripes were rendered moot by the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

Ukraine is and always was fighting for its right to exist; there was never a time when Russia wasn't gunning for the whole package. For me, speaking of "easy" versus "harsh" terms is sort of pointless when every version of the terms starts with "Russia gains control over your country" since I wouldn't trust any promises of leniency under those conditions.

But let's examine the other side, because this is a case where the war is only existential on one side. At least, in the sense that there's no way it ends with Russia being conquered. Russia could have a white peace tomorrow if somebody magically brainwashed Putin and whoever else. On the other hand, if Ukraine scrapes out a win by forcing Russia back to its border inch by bloody inch, Russia shouldn't expect all the sanctions to go away just because it has benevolently retreated from Ukrainian soil.

 

[mrttao]

Increasingly harsh terms as war goes on isn't unprecedented but certainly isn't so normal that "how it works" is a reasonable characterization. The examples that spring to mind are total wars, especially where one side has gained the upper hand and is clearly on a trajectory to crushing the other side by brute force.

There is total war. in fact we have a proxy WW3 that is about to become a literal WW3.

And ukraine is on the ropes. because they are starting to run out of munitions.
IF the united states ramps up production of munitions fast enough to supply ukraine, and IF globohomo retains control over america... then ukraine might continue to limp along.

But as the western economies are all tumbling down the situation looks ever more bleak for ukraine.

 

[strunkenwhite]

There is total war. in fact we have a proxy WW3 that is about to become a literal WW3.

"Proxy WW3" sounds to me like literal nonsense. What world is the proxy for what other world? Also, Ukraine is not on the cusp of sparking WW3.

You might have a point that Ukraine is currently experiencing an ammunition crunch due to American domestic political stupidity, but that's not a reason for Russia to press maximally onerous terms. When the political stupidity gets sorted out, as is very likely to happen, then the leverage Russia currently enjoys will dry up. It would make more sense to try to pressure Ukraine into some kind of deal it can survive accepting while the situation is most favorable to Russia, unless you think the US will never send Ukraine any more aid packages than have already been approved. If that's what Russia expects to happen I think Russia is in for a surprise.

But that would contradict your point about WW3, wouldn't it? If Russia crushes Ukraine because western aid dries up, that doesn't really sound like WW3 to me. Unless Russia conquering Ukraine necessarily leads to WW3 in which case it's weird that you seem opposed to helping Ukraine resist being conquered.

But as the western economies are all tumbling down the situation looks ever more bleak for ukraine.

...what?

 

[DarthOne]

...what?

Economically, the West isn’t doing so good. In fact it hasn’t been for the past few years, but things are getting worse. There’s been a variety of factors, but the war in Ukraine has played a part.

If that trend continues, sooner or later a choice will have to be made between continuing to sending funding and military supplies to Ukraine- and risk pissing an already thoroughly irritated civilian population to the point where they might break out the guillotines- or cutting back in order to fix problems at home.

 

[LordsFire]

Economically, the West isn’t doing so good. In fact it hasn’t been for the past few years, but things are getting worse. There’s been a variety of factors, but the war in Ukraine has played a part.

If that trend continues, sooner or later a choice will have to be made between continuing to sending funding and military supplies to Ukraine- and risk pissing an already thoroughly irritated civilian population to the point where they might break out the guillotines- or cutting back in order to fix problems at home.

Most nations that are supporting Ukraine, are spending the GDP equivalent of spare change.

Further, the issues causing serious economic harm are not supporting Ukraine, but their own domestic policies, particularly retarded green energy policies and the usual glut of bureaucratic over-regulation. Rolling that nonsense back would do far more than dropping support for Ukraine.

Further, the war is hurting Russia economically as well, most likely far more, but it's hard to be certain through all the BS that's being used to smoke-screen the real state of things. The Russian economy is much more likely to break down due to war expenditures than western economies.

 

[Marduk]

Economically, the West isn’t doing so good. In fact it hasn’t been for the past few years, but things are getting worse. There’s been a variety of factors, but the war in Ukraine has played a part.

If that trend continues, sooner or later a choice will have to be made between continuing to sending funding and military supplies to Ukraine- and risk pissing an already thoroughly irritated civilian population to the point where they might break out the guillotines- or cutting back in order to fix problems at home.

Nice narrative you have here, pointing a spotlight on an issue you really care about...
But the reality is that there are far bigger causes for western economic troubles, and also far greater money sinks that need addressing. This is just a foreign policy hobby horse that really ires certain group of usually quite fringe people people for ideological reasons i for one vehemently disagree with.

Seriously, why would the civilian populations "break out guillotines" over tens of billions and old military hardware that would be getting scrapped sooner rather than later, while they don't do that over multi trillion environmentalist pork and regulation bills? The latter has actual macroscopic economic effect, unlike the former, and actually affects their economic life in visible ways, unlike the former. And let's not even get into the cost and crime consequences of dodgy third world immigration...
Sorry, the Z-propaganda isn't that loved even in Russia itself, nevermind any western country.

 

[DarthOne]

Most nations that are supporting Ukraine, are spending the GDP equivalent of spare change.

Maybe but guess what? It’s our spare change, not Ukraine’s. And as has been pointed out, the USA did not sign a binding defense agreement with Ukraine.

I don’t know about if anyone in Europe did, but even so, the citizens of a nation should have the option to change their minds.

TLDR: ‘Dear Ukraine, get your hand out of my wallet.’

Further, the issues causing serious economic harm are not supporting Ukraine, but their own domestic policies, particularly retarded green energy policies and the usual glut of bureaucratic over-regulation. Rolling that nonsense back would do far more than dropping support for Ukraine.

I did say there other factors. And yes the green energy policies and those of de-industrialization are ‘retarded’.

Further, the war is hurting Russia economically as well, most likely far more, but it's hard to be certain through all the BS that's being used to smoke-screen the real state of things. The Russian economy is much more likely to break down due to war expenditures than western economies.

You mean like how Russia’s was supposed to during the first months/year of the war?

 

[Marduk]

I did say there other factors. And yes the green energy policies and those of de-industrialization are ‘retarded’.

The point you are missing is that the other factors are not equal in weight. The case of Ukraine has its own value, and the costs are spare change compared to the "other factors" that are actual drivers of West's problems, hundreds of times more impactful than the cost of Ukraine support.
Hence putting the spotlight on Ukraine and blaming it on West's economic woes is throughly unreasonable, and in turn creates the suspicions of more malevolent motivations that the people who do it complain about plenty much, including here.