d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1390539063907390839094522Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 19,875
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,512.50
Warn: 10%
Feb 6 2024 10:20am
Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 6 2024 03:53pm)
Not to mention, that middle ground holds critical farmland. There's already a strip that went unharvested last season and Russia would be poised to seize huge swathes of agriculture if they broke through.

https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/150000/150590/ukraine_plnt_202207.jpg

Fill that triangle in between Zaporizhzhia, Kramatorsk and Kharkiv and is there anything but flat farmlands?
If that line collapsed and Russia took the middle, what % of the total harvest in Ukraine did they just turn into sesame buns at vkusno i tochka?


How many farmers you know drive tractors through minefields?

Asking for a friend.
Member
Posts: 46,777
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,164.69
Feb 6 2024 10:37am
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 6 2024 10:20am)
How many farmers you know drive tractors through minefields?

Asking for a friend.


you notice how the vast majority of the crops in that triangle actually got harvested?
Member
Posts: 26,548
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 20,065.00
Feb 6 2024 10:47am
People look at winning or losing a war as binary, meaning the side that lost would have been better off if they just continued to fight to eventually win. I don't really think that's the best way to look at it. To me, even if Ukraine loses and there's a general stoppage of active hostilities that's actually a lot better for the average citizen living there. No threat of bombings, no threat of mobilization, hopefully large swaths that left maybe come back to rebuild both infrastructure and the economy, business can start going again, etc. Is it better to have a short but lost war or 10 year protracted war where you 'win' but lose millions?

Once the fear of retribution went away I bet a lot of normal Germans between 1945-50 were happy it's now over and some semblance of normality can return. I look forward to the moment when Ukrainians can get this return to normal.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 6 2024 10:48am
Member
Posts: 19,875
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,512.50
Warn: 10%
Feb 6 2024 10:51am
Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 6 2024 04:37pm)
you notice how the vast majority of the crops in that triangle actually got harvested?


No.
Member
Posts: 52,445
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Feb 6 2024 11:38am
Quote (Goomshill @ 6 Feb 2024 16:53)
If that line collapsed and Russia took the middle, what % of the total harvest in Ukraine did they just turn into sesame buns at vkusno i tochka?

:rofl: ^_^

But seriously: it really depends on the type of crop:

https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/rssiws/al/up_cropprod.aspx





Millet:
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/rssiws/al/crop_production_maps/Ukraine/Ukraine_Millet.png

Soybean:
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/rssiws/al/crop_production_maps/Ukraine/Ukraine_Soybean.jpg

Rapeseed:
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/rssiws/al/crop_production_maps/Ukraine/Ukraine_Rapeseed.jpg

Sunflowerseed:
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/rssiws/al/crop_production_maps/Ukraine/Ukraine_Sunflowerseed.jpg




Member
Posts: 52,445
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Feb 6 2024 11:52am
Quote (ofthevoid @ 6 Feb 2024 17:47)
People look at winning or losing a war as binary, meaning the side that lost would have been better off if they just continued to fight to eventually win. I don't really think that's the best way to look at it. To me, even if Ukraine loses and there's a general stoppage of active hostilities that's actually a lot better for the average citizen living there. No threat of bombings, no threat of mobilization, hopefully large swaths that left maybe come back to rebuild both infrastructure and the economy, business can start going again, etc. Is it better to have a short but lost war or 10 year protracted war where you 'win' but lose millions?

Once the fear of retribution went away I bet a lot of normal Germans between 1945-50 were happy it's now over and some semblance of normality can return. I look forward to the moment when Ukrainians can get this return to normal.


It depends a ton on how the other side would treat you once you've surrendered. After WW2, there were voices advocating for a much harsher peace with Germany, some plans (Morgenthau) even went as far as forcible dismantling all of Germany's industry until only an agrarian shithole is left.

During the first two post-war years, the situation in Germany was dire and the economy remained in the mud. During the 45/46 and 46/47 winters, almost as many Germans starved as during the final years of the war. It took two years, until 47, before the Allies came to the conclusion that they needed Germany as an ally and a bulwark against communism in the greater scope of the Cold War. Only then did they finally agree to a currency reform which put an end to the hyperinflation and allowed the economy to get going again. Since 48, they even began investing into the country (Marshall Plan). Since Germany had been an innovative, thriving country before the wars, it quickly got back on track under these circumstances and was flourishing again within a decade.



With Ukraine, the situation is different. They have horrible demographics, an outdated industry and can't really rely on the Russians being benevolent occupiers. (There is overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the contrary.) On the flip side, retaining their sovereignty also retains the prospect of joining the EU one day and thus gaining access to all the funding which comes with it. So the incentive for trying to hold on is bigger, and the economic outlook after a surrender-peace bleaker.



Member
Posts: 51,697
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 13,470.00
Warn: 10%
Feb 6 2024 11:59am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 6 2024 05:52pm)
It depends a ton on how the other side would treat you once you've surrendered. After WW2, there were voices advocating for a much harsher peace with Germany, some plans (Morgenthau) even went as far as forcible dismantling all of Germany's industry until only an agrarian shithole is left.

During the first two post-war years, the situation in Germany was dire and the economy remained in the mud. During the 45/46 and 46/47 winters, almost as many Germans starved as during the final years of the war. It took two years, until 47, before the Allies came to the conclusion that they needed Germany as an ally and a bulwark against communism in the greater scope of the Cold War. Only then did they finally agree to a currency reform which put an end to the hyperinflation and allowed the economy to get going again. Since 48, they even began investing into the country (Marshall Plan). Since Germany had been an innovative, thriving country before the wars, it quickly got back on track under these circumstances and was flourishing again within a decade.



With Ukraine, the situation is different. They have horrible demographics, an outdated industry and can't really rely on the Russians being benevolent occupiers. (There is overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the contrary.) On the flip side, retaining their sovereignty also retains the prospect of joining the EU one day and thus gaining access to all the funding which comes with it. So the incentive for trying to hold on is bigger, and the economic outlook after a surrender-peace bleaker.


summed it up quite well.
Member
Posts: 26,548
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 20,065.00
Feb 6 2024 12:11pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 6 2024 12:52pm)
It depends a ton on how the other side would treat you once you've surrendered. After WW2, there were voices advocating for a much harsher peace with Germany, some plans (Morgenthau) even went as far as forcible dismantling all of Germany's industry until only an agrarian shithole is left.

During the first two post-war years, the situation in Germany was dire and the economy remained in the mud. During the 45/46 and 46/47 winters, almost as many Germans starved as during the final years of the war. It took two years, until 47, before the Allies came to the conclusion that they needed Germany as an ally and a bulwark against communism in the greater scope of the Cold War. Only then did they finally agree to a currency reform which put an end to the hyperinflation and allowed the economy to get going again. Since 48, they even began investing into the country (Marshall Plan). Since Germany had been an innovative, thriving country before the wars, it quickly got back on track under these circumstances and was flourishing again within a decade.

With Ukraine, the situation is different. They have horrible demographics, an outdated industry and can't really rely on the Russians being benevolent occupiers. (There is overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the contrary.) On the flip side, retaining their sovereignty also retains the prospect of joining the EU one day and thus gaining access to all the funding which comes with it. So the incentive for trying to hold on is bigger, and the economic outlook after a surrender-peace bleaker.


You're talking about non-acute issues. Not saying hyperinflation or the economy doesn't matter but continuing a war doesn't solve those issues, only exasperates them. At least in 45-47, Germans had some comfort because bombs no longer rained down on you nor your 18 year olds were sent to the front.

Saying it's different, therefore coming to a conclusion that war continuation would somehow beneficial doesn't actually follow. Their predicament is not all or nothing, either continue to fight or be human slaves to Russia. This is a dichotomy presented by neocons because it leaves no room for compromise and obviously we wouldn't support with a country being enslaved, therefore war must go on. The reality on the ground right now that's on the table, is for the pro-Russian east to be yielded with something like 75-80% of the remaining country of Ukraine, hardly giving up sovereignty, hardly having your EU aspirations shut down. A loss for Ukraine today, doesn't mean Russia is getting a puppet in Kiev and there's a purge of all those that pushed for war. In reality, it's they lose the east and have to agree to it.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 6 2024 12:14pm
Member
Posts: 51,697
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 13,470.00
Warn: 10%
Feb 6 2024 12:17pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Feb 6 2024 06:11pm)
You're talking about non-acute issues. Not saying hyperinflation or the economy doesn't matter but continuing a war doesn't solve those issues, only exasperates them. At least in 45-47, Germans had some comfort because bombs no longer rained down on you nor your 18 year olds were sent to the front.

Saying it's different, therefore coming to a conclusion that war continuation would somehow beneficial doesn't actually follow. Their predicament is not all or nothing, either continue to fight or be human slaves to Russia. This is a dichotomy presented by neocons because it leaves no room for compromise and obviously we wouldn't support with a country being enslaved, therefore war must go on. The reality on the ground right now that's on the table, is for the pro-Russian east to be yielded with something like 75-80% of the remaining country of Ukraine, hardly giving up sovereignty, hardly having your EU aspirations shut down.


I read his post differently, to my mind he was outlining a rationale where there were absolutes and no middle ground.

i.e. surrender all of ukraine to russia or keep fighting. this is not what russia wants (as i understand it) but this is the narrative that ukraine cant escape from.
Member
Posts: 26,418
Joined: Mar 11 2016
Gold: 5,016.70
Warn: 10%
Feb 6 2024 12:18pm


Can I use this as a sig quote?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1390539063907390839094522Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll