Yeah, I'm not sure - If Putin's team will really do it (still possible) and if NATO has already a plan against that (I guess there is one if they are professionals) .

Russia moved in with their full force. They failed and had to mobilize.

Stationing troops in Belarus at the very least forces Ukraine to divert resources and manpower to the capital.

I think it's likely Russia will flood occupied territories with the next wave of recruits.
In my opinion It's possible but less likely that they launch a counter offensive to capture new territory
West of the Dnipro.

I've noticed alot of reports, mostly in US media outlets about Ukrainians recapturing Crimea.
That is threadbare and not realistic.

The Kremlin have changes their goals constantly but it appears that holding the Donbass and Crimea specifically is now the desired outcome.

That doesn't seem unlikely but also seems like a recipe for a longterm insurgency for Russian occupiers.

This doesn't make sense. 150-200k soldiers, the initial force is hardly the full force if you look at their army size. Recapturing Crimea is non-sensical. Even recapturing the full Donbass is unrealistic. There's no real insurgency in those regions coming from internally. Maybe in Zap and Kherson there's some of that but in those other regions most people are firmly in the pro-Russia camp.

It's hard to know for sure what happens with troops in Belarus. Could be a head fake, could be to divert Ukrainian attention could be preparation to attack Kiev or even more west to cut off supplies.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 29 2022 11:33am

Most people are in the Russian camp

Yes most people in Crimea and the Donbass are pro-Russian. 60%+ of Crimeans are ethnic Russian. The Donbass has the largest % of ethnic Russians in Ukraine outside of Crimea and have always voted 80-90% for pro-Russian candidates. Explain to me why you think it would be the opposite?

Those regions received favorable treatment during Holodomor compared to other Western Oblasts. Kyiv specifically had its grain tax increased in 1931 disproportionately compared to its grain production and sowing capacity.

these western regions are the descendants of peasants who were starved but didn't have to eat their children. its easier to starve for mother russia than it is to eat little Boris for mother russia.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 29 2022 11:49am

Cool tangent why Russia bad but my points stands

So what is it exactly your saying?
Most people are in the "Russian camp"
Or most people are ethnic Russians?

Or are both interchangeable to you?

Why don't we use the latest referendum results from Donetsk and Luhansk as indicators of who is in the Russian camp?

"According to the results released by the Russian Central Election Commission through its sections in the DPR and the LPR, 99.23% (2,116,800 voters) supported the annexation in Donetsk and 98.42% (1,636,302 voters) in Luhansk."

99.23% supported the annexation. That doesn't seem like a sham election at all

And so voting while under the barrel of a gun, whilst being dependant on occupying forces for food; is this what equates to being in the Russian camp?

I would be highly skeptical of the results if since the split from the USSR that region in Ukraine has been anti-Russia but you can look at prior voting patterns in Ukraine for evidence. The Donbass and Crimea have always been pro-Russian strong holds, way before any conflict.

I don't know if the referendums were shams but it takes more faith to think all of the sudden that these people hate Russians and are leading insurgencies against Russians. There was a literal civil war in the Donbass for 8 years, Ukraine has shelled Donetsk continuously during that time and still do today really. You really think the locals there, that are getting shelled by Ukrainians, that have always voted pro-Russian that have the highest Russian ethnic populations out of all Ukraine that have been in a civil war with Ukraine are anti-Russian?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 29 2022 12:31pm