d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1365236533654365536564528Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 19,885
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,502.50
Warn: 10%
Oct 31 2023 11:51am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 31 2023 05:49pm)
It's a retarded framing honestly. Some people no matter what happens will frame what happens as Russia losing.

Winning-losing is a spectrum. The best version of winning for Russia would be being in full control of the entire Ukraine and having a pro-Russian president in charge, as it was prior to 2014. Just because that didn't happen doesn't mean anything short of that is a loss.

If they have to settle for capturing and keeping 1/5 of the territory, basically the size of England (which is also the resource richest part of Ukraine) and the war dies down, it would be retarded to look past 40 years from now and say they 'lost' the war. Would take some next level mental gymnastics for a country to gain an England-sized territory and somehow be framed as losing a war.



Quote
Quote (Hamsterbaby @ May 18 2023 03:19pm)
half a million Young Russians for half of Ukraine . Pretty good deal


Great deal. Chalk it up as a win boys.
Member
Posts: 29,696
Joined: May 25 2007
Gold: 2,075.69
Oct 31 2023 11:52am
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Oct 31 2023 10:44am)
Nobody wins in war.

But don't take my word for it. Look at Putins war aims.

First he demanded NATO return to its pre 1997 borders. Failed.
Sweden and Finland will enter NATO.

Then he claimed Russia would demilitarise Ukraine. Failed. Ukraine is the most militarised place probably on the planet.

He also claimed Russia would remove the "Nazi regime"
in Ukraine. Failed.
Zelensky asked for ammunition and not a ride out.

This is in contrast to the 2014 occupation of Crimes where Putin obviously felt he needed to secure Sevastopol for the Russian black sea fleet. And that was accomplished.
Which ironically has now been decapitated and is headquartering to the east in order to avoid further destruction.

Allow me to ask you these questions,

Can you clarify what ordinary Russias had to gain from this war before the invasion?
Can you clarify what they have gained at the expensive of enormous casualties?


To your questions,

1) Ordinary Russians can feel joy and satisfaction in the liberation of their brothers & sisters within the ethnic Russian former territories of Ukraine (D and L) which includes the freedom of travel to visit their friends & family who were formerly in the open air prison, secondly Russian has gained the land bridge to Crimea, improving their economic prospects substantially, translating into better quality of life & secure investments for ordinary Russian people

2) Since I gave a summary of what they gained, the question is: is it worth the expense of a high number of casualties? That question I cannot answer since I'm not Russian and really cannot have a legitimate perspective on whether it was worth it or not. In my view, it's not worth it for the territory alone, but it might be worth it to put a halt to the further encroachment of foreign nations into their sphere of influence (priceless in a way)

I definitely agree that Putin has failed in his stated goals. Ukraine is not denazified - there has been no regime change in Ukraine and none of the Banderite neo-nazis within the Ukrainian government & military have been turned over to Russia. And of course he has not demilitarized Ukraine.

The way I see it is that Putin has overall came out ahead here with his gambit, even though his (quite lofty) goals were not achieved.
Member
Posts: 19,885
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,502.50
Warn: 10%
Oct 31 2023 11:53am
Quote (El1te @ Oct 31 2023 05:52pm)
To your questions,

1) Ordinary Russians can feel joy and satisfaction in the liberation of their brothers & sisters within the ethnic Russian former territories of Ukraine (D and L) which includes the freedom of travel to visit their friends & family who were formerly in the open air prison, secondly Russian has gained the land bridge to Crimea, improving their economic prospects substantially, translating into better quality of life & secure investments for ordinary Russian people

2) Since I gave a summary of what they gained, the question is: is it worth the expense of a high number of casualties? That question I cannot answer since I'm not Russian and really cannot have a legitimate perspective on whether it was worth it or not. In my view, it's not worth it for the territory alone, but it might be worth it to put a halt to the further encroachment of foreign nations into their sphere of influence (priceless in a way)

I definitely agree that Putin has failed in his stated goals. Ukraine is not denazified - there has been no regime change in Ukraine and none of the Banderite neo-nazis within the Ukrainian government & military have been turned over to Russia. And of course he has not demilitarized Ukraine.

The way I see it is that Putin has overall came out ahead here with his gambit, even though his (quite lofty) goals were not achieved.


Would you go visit grandma in Bakhmut? Would you drive across the land bridge?

Honestly looks like clutching straws. And that's being generous.

A pointless war for the sake of denying the existence of a pro democracy pro western values Ukraine directly on Russias doorstep.

If Putin retires after his initial terms he probably goes down as the greatest leader in Russian history. Instead he refused a peaceful transfer of power or any semblance of democracy for the Russia people. Its a mess.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Oct 31 2023 11:55am
Member
Posts: 29,696
Joined: May 25 2007
Gold: 2,075.69
Oct 31 2023 11:58am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 31 2023 10:49am)
It's a retarded framing honestly. Some people no matter what happens will frame what happens as Russia losing.

Winning-losing is a spectrum. The best version of winning for Russia would be being in full control of the entire Ukraine and having a pro-Russian president in charge, as it was prior to 2014. Just because that didn't happen doesn't mean anything short of that is a loss.

If they have to settle for capturing and keeping 1/5 of the territory, basically the size of England (which is also the resource richest part of Ukraine) and the war dies down, it would be retarded to look past 40 years from now and say they 'lost' the war. Would take some next level mental gymnastics for a country to gain an England-sized territory and somehow be framed as losing a war.


I complete agree.

There are different levels of winning and losing. By definition, one side in the war has an outcome that is favourable.

Russia succeeded in annexing 1/5 of Ukrainian territory with no loss of territory on their side, which is a pretty clear outcome to me.
Member
Posts: 29,696
Joined: May 25 2007
Gold: 2,075.69
Oct 31 2023 12:10pm
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Oct 31 2023 10:53am)
Would you go visit grandma in Bakhmut? Would you drive across the land bridge?

Honestly looks like clutching straws. And that's being generous.

A pointless war for the sake of denying the existence of a pro democracy pro western values Ukraine directly on Russias doorstep.

If Putin retires after his initial terms he probably goes down as the greatest leader in Russian history. Instead he refused a peaceful transfer of power or any semblance of democracy for the Russia people. Its a mess.


I don't know, from my perspective, Russians yes are now free to drive across the land bridge. That's pretty big isn't it? Not to mention now having complete control over the Sea of Azov

It doesn't seem pointless to Russians, who now have a land bridge to their friends and family. From my perspective this is very clear.

Russia didn't achieve all their objectives but it seems to me they did pretty well for themselves in liberating Russian areas from Ukrainian rule.

This post was edited by El1te on Oct 31 2023 12:11pm
Member
Posts: 4,591
Joined: Jan 30 2021
Gold: 751.50
Oct 31 2023 02:33pm
Quote (El1te @ Oct 31 2023 07:10pm)
I don't know, from my perspective, Russians yes are now free to drive across the land bridge. That's pretty big isn't it? Not to mention now having complete control over the Sea of Azov

It doesn't seem pointless to Russians, who now have a land bridge to their friends and family. From my perspective this is very clear.

Russia didn't achieve all their objectives but it seems to me they did pretty well for themselves in liberating Russian areas from Ukrainian rule.


a motorcycle traveler i know rode his bike from mainland russia to crimea and from there through the occupied territory back to russia without a problem

he is bulgarian and was suprised when the locals told him that the area is pretty open away from the frontlines

i guess a different passport might cause problems over there
Member
Posts: 34,396
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 278.37
Oct 31 2023 02:55pm
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Oct 31 2023 01:53pm)
Would you go visit grandma in Bakhmut? Would you drive across the land bridge?

Honestly looks like clutching straws. And that's being generous.

A pointless war for the sake of denying the existence of a pro democracy pro western values Ukraine directly on Russias doorstep.

If Putin retires after his initial terms he probably goes down as the greatest leader in Russian history. Instead he refused a peaceful transfer of power or any semblance of democracy for the Russia people. Its a mess.


Not the Russian way, and I'm not even sure the Russian public ever wanted Putin to retire. The current situation is pretty fucked up, though.
Member
Posts: 52,472
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Oct 31 2023 07:09pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ 31 Oct 2023 18:17)
Collective NATO alliance pumped hundreds of billions and emptied out many years worth of ammo, only to amount to dislodging Russia from a dozen villages.

The best and most objective indication of how the war is going is support from other countries, which is waning and is at the lowest compared to at any point in this war. Proof is in the pudding, no matter how much you wish for things to come into existence.

The main achievement of NATO arms supplies to Ukraine was stopping the Russian initiative and even giving Ukraine the initiative for sustained stretches of this war. Note that we didn't actually give them a large number of artillery or battle tanks, very little tactical missiles, no helicopters and no fighter jets. Ukraine not being able to break through deeply entrenched positions with the extremely limited tools they were given is the expected outcome.

The support from other countries is heavily influenced by their own economic situation as well as international diplomacy, so using it as a measure for how the actual warfare is going is anything but objective.





Quote (ofthevoid @ 31 Oct 2023 18:49)
Winning-losing is a spectrum. The best version of winning for Russia would be being in full control of the entire Ukraine and having a pro-Russian president in charge, as it was prior to 2014. Just because that didn't happen doesn't mean anything short of that is a loss.

If they have to settle for capturing and keeping 1/5 of the territory, basically the size of England (which is also the resource richest part of Ukraine) and the war dies down, it would be retarded to look past 40 years from now and say they 'lost' the war. Would take some next level mental gymnastics for a country to gain an England-sized territory and somehow be framed as losing a war.

Framing it as Russia losing the war is indeed silly. But even if the war is ended on the current lines, it's really fucking far from a big win for Russia. Yes, they gained territory, but aside from Melitopol, everything they conquered was either empty land or major population centers which they could only capture after bombing them into the absolute ground (Mariupol, Sieverodonetsk, Bakhmut, possibly Avdiivka).

And they paid for these territorial gains by permanently losing their closest and most solvent customers, turning themselves into vassals of Beijing, blowing up their budget, losing hundreds of thousands of lives as well as being faced with a reinvigorated and expanded NATO which is now more unified against Russia than it has been in over two decades. Additionally, they had to abandon their ally Armenia when Azerbaijan took Nagorno-Karabakh (a big symbolic hit for Russia's reputation as a reliable military partner) because they were stretched too thin. And of course there was the strange Wagner mutiny where Putin had clearly lost control over his own creation and saw his authority publicly challenged by a heavily armed private army which was marching on Moscow.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 31 2023 07:11pm
Member
Posts: 26,557
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 20,065.00
Nov 1 2023 05:30am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 31 2023 09:09pm)
The main achievement of NATO arms supplies to Ukraine was stopping the Russian initiative and even giving Ukraine the initiative for sustained stretches of this war. Note that we didn't actually give them a large number of artillery or battle tanks, very little tactical missiles, no helicopters and no fighter jets. Ukraine not being able to break through deeply entrenched positions with the extremely limited tools they were given is the expected outcome.

The support from other countries is heavily influenced by their own economic situation as well as international diplomacy, so using it as a measure for how the actual warfare is going is anything but objective.






Framing it as Russia losing the war is indeed silly. But even if the war is ended on the current lines, it's really fucking far from a big win for Russia. Yes, they gained territory, but aside from Melitopol, everything they conquered was either empty land or major population centers which they could only capture after bombing them into the absolute ground (Mariupol, Sieverodonetsk, Bakhmut, possibly Avdiivka).

And they paid for these territorial gains by permanently losing their closest and most solvent customers turning themselves into vassals of Beijing, blowing up their budget, losing hundreds of thousands of lives as well as being faced with a reinvigorated and expanded NATO which is now more unified against Russia than it has been in over two decades. Additionally, they had to abandon their ally Armenia when Azerbaijan took Nagorno-Karabakh (a big symbolic hit for Russia's reputation as a reliable military partner) because they were stretched too thin. And of course there was the strange Wagner mutiny where Putin had clearly lost control over his own creation and saw his authority publicly challenged by a heavily armed private army which was marching on Moscow.


You're crazy if you think Europe saying no to cheaper next door natural resources will last more than a generation or two, if that. A good model is Germany post WW2. If Germany which caused so much destruction and death was able to reconnect to Europe post WW2, what makes you think Germany in 20 years will say no thanks to Russian resources? Heck, I damn near guarantee that even within 10 years Germany will be back to Russian gas.

All the things you subsequently described are peripheral tangents. 100k losses, Sweden and Finland joining, which were already NATO effectively and closer ties with Beijing are hardly the sky is falling, world ending losses you frame them out to be. They are worse off versus 2014 when they were looking at the prospect of completely losing Ukraine, including their warm water Crimea port. Today, they reversed at least a portion of those losses and captured 1/5 of Ukraine.

Member
Posts: 4,591
Joined: Jan 30 2021
Gold: 751.50
Nov 1 2023 07:41am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 1 2023 12:30pm)
You're crazy if you think Europe saying no to cheaper next door natural resources will last more than a generation or two, if that. A good model is Germany post WW2. If Germany which caused so much destruction and death was able to reconnect to Europe post WW2, what makes you think Germany in 20 years will say no thanks to Russian resources? Heck, I damn near guarantee that even within 10 years Germany will be back to Russian gas.

All the things you subsequently described are peripheral tangents. 100k losses, Sweden and Finland joining, which were already NATO effectively and closer ties with Beijing are hardly the sky is falling, world ending losses you frame them out to be. They are worse off versus 2014 when they were looking at the prospect of completely losing Ukraine, including their warm water Crimea port. Today, they reversed at least a portion of those losses and captured 1/5 of Ukraine.


germany wont go back

why? the industry that needs large quantities of cheap gas is getting demolished right now, thats some 5D chess right there B)

the domestic needs can be covered with LNG

aside from that i agree with the rest, it was obviously costly, but hardly a catastrophe to move away from the shrinking markets of the west
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1365236533654365536564528Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll