Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[TopCat]

Not sarcasm. I can't see how Ukraine can win, any more. I'd rather see the killing stop.

I'm wary of what Putin will do next as a result of Russia coming out on top here, but can it be worse?

If I'm projecting then pray tell, what's your ideal outcome?

If I had you wrong I apologise.

There is never an ideal outcome to war. I would say a ceasefire followed by a negotiated peace, taking the Minsk agreements as a starting point.

 

[existentialist]

Even if myself and millions of others who don’t support the Ukrainians changed our minds and became full throated NATO supporters, it would matter for nothing.

The reality on the ground will only worsen.

Ukraine has little to look forward to. Smashed up, in debt, terrible demographics.

How would you advise the Ukrainians right now?

I'd advise them to fight to the bitter end. Because allowing Russia to overrun them can only be worse. But I think they don't need MY advice.

 

[TopCat]

As posted upthread current US advise is moving to effectively recognise Ukraine has lost the south and to dig in and hold what it has, as the Russians have, and effectively make a new hard border based on fortifications. In terms of the goal of reclaiming the annexed land that is 'giving up'.

The stalemate will be formalised militarily whilst the politics of EU and NATO ascension catches ups

From my perspective its been two years already like this, this reality has been apparent for at the very least the last year when Mark Milley was signaling now was the time to negotiate.

That Guardian editorial talking about a need to switch to realism over enthusiasm if fucking insane:

...wars are not won by enthusiasm, they are always matters of cold realism...the enthusiasm over reality has been obscene and deadly

The west trained troops for a few weeks then expected them to take 50 percent plus losses attacking the Russian lines.
The enthusiasm expressed then was hugely cynical.

 

[TopCat]

I'd advise them to fight to the bitter end. Because allowing Russia to overrun them can only be worse. But I think they don't need MY advice.

You have been free with advice thus far.
Advising them to fight to the bitter end is not in their interests given they are losing.

 

[mojo pixy]

If I had you wrong I apologise.

There is never an ideal outcome to war. I would say a ceasefire followed by a negotiated peace, taking the Minsk agreements as a starting point.

No, I'm angry, and frightened - about the violence, the constant double standards, the centering of the USA over the actual protagonists, about possible futures that all frankly look awful - but I'm not being sarcastic.

I don't want everyone in Ukraine to die or remain in exile. I don't want some of the most fertile land in Europe to be ruined for generations (too late probably)

I can't see a military way out for Ukraine, I could for a while but at this point I can't. I want to see an end to this war and if that entails letting Putin feel he's won, so be it IMO.

As I say, that also terrifies me but I think at this point it's basically inevitable.

 

[Pickman's model]

As posted upthread current US advise is moving to effectively recognise Ukraine has lost the south and to dig in and hold what it has, as the Russians have, and effectively make a new hard border based on fortifications. In terms of the goal of reclaiming the annexed land that is 'giving up'.

The stalemate will be formalised militarily whilst the politics of EU and NATO ascension catches ups

From my perspective its been two years already like this, this reality has been apparent for at the very least the last year when Mark Milley was signaling now was the time to negotiate.

That Guardian editorial talking about a need to switch to realism over enthusiasm if fucking insane:

...wars are not won by enthusiasm, they are always matters of cold realism...the enthusiasm over reality has been obscene and deadly

Wars are not always matters of cold realism. Take Vietnam for example. Or Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Ukraine.

 

[two sheds]

I'd agree that ceasefire does now seem best option. What if Putin doesn't accept it though? They keep their present positions but Putin keeps bombing Ukrainian cities doesn't sound good either.

 

[TopCat]

I'd agree that ceasefire does now seem best option. What if Putin doesn't accept it though? They keep their present positions but Putin keeps bombing Ukrainian cities doesn't sound good either.

Worth a try? Save thousands of lives?

 

[two sheds]

Worth a try? Save thousands of lives?

Possibly, unless Putin keeps bombing Ukrainian cities until he's built up his munitions again and then goes in and finishes the job.

 

[TopCat]

I can’t see Zelensky surviving any ceasefire negotiations though. I fear we may get something worse.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can’t see Zelensky surviving any ceasefire negotiations though. I fear we may get something worse.

Someone who is a real comedian perhaps

 

[TopCat]

Someone who is a real comedian perhaps

He did a joke in the US Senate yesterday. Claimed he didn’t know the English term “stalemate “ and made a fuss about a translation.

 

[ska invita]

I see similarities between Gaza and Ukraine...

First off in both cases the bigger fascists have won

Secondly there is a strong case to say that the underdog fighting militarily against a stronger adversary has lead to total disaster....Gazans have lost Gaza and Ukrainians have lost their south and sea access.

In both cases the US has shown it will do what's best for itself and fuck everyone else, wether it's ethnic cleansing or some other mass destruction, it's geopolitical goals always come first. The (White) house always wins.

 

[existentialist]

But again I ask, how would you lot (and for you lot just add up the people who have thrown insults and death threats at me) advise the Ukrainians now?

You poor, poor snowflake.

 

[mojo pixy]

I see similarities between Gaza and Ukraine...

There are loads tbh. But some people are focussed mainly on what the USA wants/does, and on kicking against that no matter the context.

I still want this war to end ASAP. I still genuinely fear what comes next.

 

[existentialist]

You have been free with advice thus far.

Bollocks. I think you are confusing me for someone else, probably a product of your imagination.

Advising them to fight to the bitter end is not in their interests given they are losing.

You could have said that about the UK in 1942.

 

[mojo pixy]

You could have said that about the UK in 1942.

Or indeed about Palestine in 2023

 

[Pickman's model]

He did a joke in the US Senate yesterday. Claimed he didn’t know the English term “stalemate “ and made a fuss about a translation.

I turned to the person next to me and said that joke's stale, mate, and he agreed with me

 

[Pickman's model]

Bollocks. I think you are confusing me for someone else, probably a product of your imagination.


You could have said that about the UK in 1942.

What, the poor beleaguered British empire who only had the United States and Soviet Union standing alongside them?

 

[TopCat]

You poor, poor snowflake.

After all your war enthusiasm, this is all you have?

 

[Artaxerxes]

You poor, poor snowflake.

He’s the real victim here

 

[The39thStep]

I can’t see Zelensky surviving any ceasefire negotiations though. I fear we may get something worse.

His term ends next year but as elections are unlikely to take place due to martial law, therefore any change in leadership is unlikely unless there was some sort of internal manoeuvring or velvet coup.

There has recently been some open disagreement with Zelensky's direction of the war , not just from the usual suspect Arestovich but also from Zaluzhny who was backed up by Klitschko the Mayor of Kyiv. However, these criticisms don't necessarily suggest 'something worse', they generally coalesce around a view that the war is reaching a stalemate with a smattering of criticism about Zelensky's 'authoritarian' style. Zelensky's treatment of former PM Poroshenko has also been criticised.

Zaluzhny according to some commentators is clearly seen by Zelensky as a rival . He is seen as the face of the Ukrainian Armed Forces although Ukrainska Pravda speculated that loyalty within the AFU was split between Zaluzhny and Oleksandr Syrskyi, an ally of Zelenskyy. Zaluzhny aside from his view that the war is edging to a stalemate doesn't say much else and doesn't seem to agitate against Zelensky.

Arestovich's line is that a peace deal would have saved several hundred thousand deaths and serious injuries .Arakhamia, who led the Ukranian delegation in the aborted peace talks last year says that a deal was on the table in exchange for Ukranian neutrality. Arestovich also says its possible that there will be civil unrest as people refuse to fight for Zelensky, as "Russia peacefully holds elections" ( for the Russian Presidency ) in the occupied areas.

As for the something worse, very little is heard in terms of criticism, at this stage anyway, from the far right. Azov is firmly embedded in the AFU now , its clothing brand is raking in money and seems to be quite comfortable under both Zaluzhny or Zelensky.

Other papers and commentators just see the intrigue as part of Russian propaganda and rumour mill.

 

[Rob Ray]

In both cases the US has shown it will do what's best for itself and fuck everyone else, wether it's ethnic cleansing or some other mass destruction, it's geopolitical goals always come first. The (White) house always wins.

This is the bit which Topcat and others mistake as the US "leading the conflict" despite the invasion being ordered by Putin, continued by Russia for two years with zero suggestion of a compromise position being available, presaged by multiple other mass-murdering invasions etc. The US didn't make the conflict happen, nor did it make the Ukrainians continue resisting, it gave them the means to do so because it figured that'd tie up and heavily cost a rival (two, actually, the EU being the other).

And now it's bogged down with the costs set to escalate beyond what the US deems worthwhile its diplomatic corps is feeling out the possibilities for swinging into line with Topcat's position of ignoring what the Ukrainians want, the implications there for a Russian victory, etc etc. Except once again, even now, Putin (the man who has apparently little to no responsibility for any of this "proxy US conflict") doesn't appear to be playing ball.

 

[nogojones]

Why do you think the US supports the aggressor in one conflict and the attacked in the other?

Because it suits their geopolitical interests. In the same way the US supported the Kurds in Syria. It didn't mean you should say "fuck the Kurds, all power to Assad".

But it also doesn't mean that you should put your trust in the geopolitical aims of the US either. They're not in it for truth, justice or any of that bollocks.

 

[editor]

A lot of lives lost for no progress.

If only Russia hadn't staged an illegal invasion and gone on to commit untold amounts of war crimes, people on both sides would be enjoying Christmas as usual.

 

[The39thStep]

If only Russia hadn't staged an illegal invasion and gone on to commit untold amounts of war crimes, people on both sides would be enjoying Christmas as usual.

and on the same day

 

[krtek a houby]

If only Russia hadn't staged an illegal invasion and gone on to commit untold amounts of war crimes, people on both sides would be enjoying Christmas as usual.

If only Biden hadn't started the war

 

[editor]

After all your war enthusiasm, this is all you have?

Could you post up (or forward by PM) examples of some of these actual death threats you have receive here, please?

 

[Pickman's model]

This is the bit which Topcat and others mistake as the US "leading the conflict" despite the invasion being ordered by Putin, continued by Russia for two years with zero suggestion of a compromise position being available, presaged by multiple other mass-murdering invasions etc. The US didn't make the conflict happen, nor did it make the Ukrainians continue resisting, it gave them the means to do so because it figured that'd tie up and heavily cost a rival (two, actually, the EU being the other).

And now it's bogged down with the costs set to escalate beyond what the US deems worthwhile its diplomatic corps is feeling out the possibilities for swinging into line with Topcat's position of ignoring what the Ukrainians want, the implications there for a Russian victory, etc etc. Except once again, even now, Putin (the man who has apparently little to no responsibility for any of this "proxy US conflict") doesn't appear to be playing ball.

tbh the war has changed and the initiative no longer really lies with the russians: putin is not leading the dance any more. the americans have a decisive influence on the outcome of the war by choosing the extent to which they provide material and intangible support. so, yes, i would say that the united states is leading the conflict, they can determine the direction it goes in by providing a vast amount of weaponry or turning off the tap. to take the second world war as an example, most people could say - and rightly in my view - that hitler led the war up to about the middle of 1942. but after that point, after victories in the desert, after the sixth army became embroiled in stalingrad, the initiative fell away from berlin. and so here, the initiative, the determining direction, is no longer putin's but the americans - although they no longer speak with one voice and us domestic politics may decide whether kyiv is forced to the negotiating table and forced to cede land east of the dnipro.

 

[Pickman's model]

Could you post up examples of some of these actual death threats you have receive here, please?

so it's now ok if TopCat shares private messages, which is how i imagine some of these messages have been conveyed?