Would attempting to assassinate half of Russian leadership through a rage induced aneurysm be considered an act of war? Because that's what it would do.
Russian-Ukrainian-Polish Eternal Friendship Thread
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
Return to Poland because Prussia no longer exists and the Germans lost all right to try to claim it after WW2.
As I said, the point read to create a deal that both sides don't like, but might accept.
Maybe add in allowing Russia use of warm water ports in the Med that we usually monopolize; offer space at Rota or in Greece and freer access through the Bosphorus in exchange for the deal limiting both NATO and CSTO expansion.
NATO wont agree and Russia would most liekly decide that you are declaring war for such a deal
You miss the whole point of Russian geopolitics in the region here.
Russia claims that they object to EU/NATO in their former imperial possessions because it makes them paranoid about muh NATO invasion and blockades.
But that's just simple a propaganda line for TV, playing the underdog, because silly westerners love an underdog story.
Russia objects to EU/NATO in their former imperial possessions because that seriously cockblocks their ambitions to scratch the "former" part. Any parts that do so are probably lost to them for many decades at minimum. And it makes them seethe like nothing else. Obviously they won't give up any possessions they still hold solidly for the sake of that, especially something as strategically useful and as solidly held as Kaliningrad, it would be 100% counterproductive to what they are trying to achieve here.
Their whole set of demands is quite telling - they demand promises that the west won't invite their former vassal states into the western camp even if they want to join, but they distinctly make absolutely no promises that they won't do the same through more or less covert and unofficial ways, whether they want to be there or not.
Why? Because that's exactly what they want to do.
As i put it before, they don't want buffer states, they want, at minimum, satellite states, if not outright annexation.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
That is what Tartus naval base is for and Russia expect USA to renege on any treaty they sign, as soon as it suits them anyway.
Montreaux agreement suits them right now.
The US might also support a Ukrainian insurgency against Russia:
U.S. Considers Backing an Insurgency if Russia Invades Ukraine (Published 2022)
Conversations about how far the United States would go to subvert Russia in the event of an invasion have revived the specter of a new Cold War.
If Russia wants to install a neutralist regime in Kiev, it is more than welcome to try. But it shouldn't be complaining if Russian troops will subsequently be coming home in body bags.
Seems like a good deal, honestly.
And no further expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization either. And an end of Russian support to Lukashenko's regime in Belarus considering that he rigged the 2020 election there. (Now, that's one 2020 election that actually was rigged!)I would not support a Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially one that goes beyond the Donbass. However, the real positive of any Russian invasion of Ukraine would be that Ukrainian Neo-Nazis are going to be using themselves as cannon fodder. This, IMHO, is the most fitting role for them. Putting their own lives on the line to fight Imperial Moskali Domination, I mean. Better that they do it than more decent Ukrainians, you know?
I previously posted this in another thread but it's also worth posting this here:
www-bild-de.translate.goog
Above is a possible map of what a Russian invasion of Ukraine will look like. It will start with the south, followed by the northeast, and then followed by Kiev. Russia will leave western Ukraine unoccupied because the risk of insurgency is the greatest there--though of course there would also be the possibility of insurgents from western Ukraine infiltrating into Russian-occupied Ukraine.
BILD exklusiv: Russlands Kriegspläne: So könnte Putin die Ukraine vernichten
Aus Nato- und Geheimdienstkreisen hat BILD brisante Details über die Einmarschpläne Russlands in die Ukraine erfahren. Sogar Kiew könnte demnach fallen.
www-bild-de.translate.goog
Above is a possible map of what a Russian invasion of Ukraine will look like. It will start with the south, followed by the northeast, and then followed by Kiev. Russia will leave western Ukraine unoccupied because the risk of insurgency is the greatest there--though of course there would also be the possibility of insurgents from western Ukraine infiltrating into Russian-occupied Ukraine.
History Learner
Well-known member
Sure, if you ignore the hundreds of NATO "trainers and advisers" in country and the immense political capital NATO nations have spent on Ukraine. In the same way there was no U.S. ground troops in Afghanistan last year when it fell, the loss of Ukraine will be viewed as just as much a blow as ultimate Taliban victory entailed.
No, it's actually called being aware of what the term "Imperial Overreach" means. Getting involved in every fight "just because", which is literally the best argument you can make here and should be telling to everyone reading this, is a great way to waste your strength and turn everyone else so against you that they gang up on your now weakened Empire. It's a story as old as time and it's exactly why I'm hoping the Russians do this, just to beat this very important lesson into heads because it's an important one.
My only concern is jingoism like yours is going to result in my homeland being reduced to nuclear glass for a nation we have no responsibility for or vested interest in.
History Learner
Well-known member
I don't think they're complaining anymore, they've already showed the willingness to do that as far back as Chechnya and then Georgia in 2008. Realistically though, I really doubt the Russians are going to have much in the way of issues of rolling Ukraine directly.
They can certainly occupy Ukraine; the greater challenge will be in dealing with a Ukrainian insurgency afterwards--hence my "body bags" comment here.
History Learner
Well-known member
I really doubt the U.S. is going to have much success in stirring up such, or that the Russians can't deal with it; they have a far better track record of crushing insurgencies then we do and certainly seem to have a lot of intelligence depth into Ukraine. The stopping line you posted earlier seems designed to prevent the worst of that too, by leaving out the Ultra Nationalist areas.
They couldn't crush the Afghan insurgency in the 1980s.
History Learner
Well-known member
They did, more or less. CIA and ISI agreed by the late 1980s the Muj had largely been reduced as a threat, a view that was vindicated by the crushing victory at Jalalabad in '89. The DRA actually outlasted the USSR itself and only came undone when internal powerbrokers-many of which later appeared in GIRoA-flipped on it. That's how we got the multi-sided Afghan Civil War of the 1990s.
Why do you think that the Soviets were more successful in Afghanistan than we were?
History Learner
Well-known member
They actually had a plan and focus, as well as willingness to take and deal casualties in a way we didn't. This isn't simply tough guy rhetoric; the Soviets keep the boots on the ground doing the hard fighting before the security turnover, while we let the unready and untrained ANA do all the fighting and dying from 2014 onwards for the most part, sans a few exceptions like Trump's mini surge in late 2017.
Something amusing that came up recently. A British military flight from Britain to Ukraine was apparently routed around Germany for some inexplicable reason.
No answers yet but theories are being proposed...
😁
No answers yet but theories are being proposed...
😁
>loss
How can you lose something you never owned to begin with?
Ukraine is, since around 2010, in flux between Russia and the west, leaning a bit west since 2014.
As for what happens with advisers in such scenarios, guess the same deal as in the Georgia war. They get evacuated.
It's not a "just because" fight. Syria and Libya were way worse cases of that.
This is about maintaining the US alliance network in Europe, which however under-militarized and acting stupidly at times (not without US influence there), still has some of the more advanced armies and military technology on the planet. If Russia throws its weight around in Central Europe and USA ignores it, that raises questions about what's the point of NATO. Probably would be great news for the French, if they are smart they may even turn the leftovers into a mini-NATO, capture some of the political infrastructure, provide replacement nuclear umbrella, and in exchange get allied support for their adventures in ex-colonial Africa and a lot of prestige they love.
Also how is it turning everyone else against USA? Its not like Russian expansionism is loved in the region, quite the opposite.
In the end, the way "based" Russia pacified Chechenya for good was to send big bags of money to a local warlord to do it for them. And the deal is that they have to keep sending them, and not ask questions how he does it or where the money goes. If they stopped, trouble would start faster than an election cycle goes.
Here's the problem though, Ukraine is many times bigger than Chechenya. Russia is not America, it cannot afford to spend trillions USD on a 20 year peacekeeping and rebuilding operation. It would drive them bankrupt. They already are thin on cash, and they would get hit with sanctions on top of it. So the trick is for the west to simply arrange it so that the occupation is costly to Russia, in money and PR terms, they don't have much reserve in either. Their tip of the spear forces get stuck in Ukraine for good, demoralized and possibly suffering attrition from the unpleasantness of COIN warfare, military and rebuilding budget doing whatever possible, while its still 30-60% short of what is needed. At the price of Ukraine, which 2 decades ago Russia still solidly ruled by proxy, Russian conventional military is practically neutralized in regard to threatening other countries in the region with similar actions, because they can't let go of Ukraine, yet they also can't afford the investment to make it self-sustaining.
That would be a strategic victory for NATO.
You think that occupying most of Ukraine would actually be a victory for Russia? Please! It would just make the Ukrainian population even more alienated from Russia. And Ukraine isn't Taiwan. Even excluding western Ukraine, the population ratio between Russia and Ukraine might be something like 5:1. For China and Taiwan, it's something like 50:1. So, Taiwan is much easier for China to swallow than Ukraine is. And there will still be a rump independent pro-Western western Ukraine that will give inspiration to Ukrainians in Russian-occupied Ukraine. It could be a scenario similar to what happened in Germany during the Cold War or what happened in Korea since 1950, but ultimately, the side who will win this propaganda war will be side who is best capable of improving the lives of its citizens.
I would expect Russia to give a lot of gas gibs and whatnot to its puppetized part of Ukraine, along with a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), but not outright EEU membership itself since this would likely be too divisive even in eastern and southern Ukraine nowadays. Eight years of warfare has alienated even those regions from Russia, after all.