At this point there seems like there's 3 likely possibilities as far as outcomes

1. Status quo engrained, a negotiated peace eventually comes or just the fighting lulls enough, and Russia picks up no more than marginal gains past what it has already, Ukraine joins the EU/NATO, the DPR/LPR/Crimea are in Russia minus the Donbass regions currently held by Ukraine
2. Russia continues advancing and takes over pretty much all the Donbass east of the Dnipro, overrunning the farmlands and villages that can't be defended like the cities, but Kiev and other major population centers are held by Ukraine, and again a negotiated peace eventually emerges but with Russia holding almost all the valuable lands
3. Ukraine fully implodes, either with the public turning on the regime or the nazis infighting and deciding to overthrow zelensky, ukraine devolves into full chaos and either gets swept entirely by Russia or reemerges with a new government, at which point its pretty impossible to predict how the chaos unfolds, but it could even restore a pro-russian government to west Ukraine without Russia fully annexing it

I still think 1. is the most likely
But 2. is possible and 3. is still within the imagination, and a real concern. It would even follow a lot of precedent for american puppet regimes in proxy wars, I mean, how many have imploded and how many haven't? It might seem far fetched today but historical precedent says things can always get worse

Yeah he really likes NATO gobbling up parts of Russia that are historically Russian full of ethnic Russians. So surely NATO's expansion got nothing to do with it!

And never mind the Nazis that NATO is arming to the teeth. Putin likes Nazis too!

Great interpretation of the Putin interview man




Actually it's you who seems to have a problem here. You have a problem with Scott commenting on the Russia/Ukraine conflict and instead of challenging his comments you play it on the man saying he's not qualified to comment because of convictions in the past. Which is a complete shit attitude.

The man has valuable experience (US military, foreign policy / weapons inspector) meaning his opinions matter whether you like him or not. That's the point here.


You don't like the guy because he's critical of US foreign policy, just admit that instead of tying yourself into a knot going like "he's a US state actor don't you know that he worked for the US govt" (in the past lol) and then go like "hey I meant he works for the Kremlin so he's a Russian state actor didn't you get that"

SMH

This post was edited by Djunior on Feb 18 2024 03:37am

1) Doubt Russians would be keen on NATO in Ukraine and will do everything in their power to make sure this doesn’t happen. NATO cannot accept Ukraine with territories actively at war - means they have to cede with a ceasefire agreement recognizing loss of territory - political suicide and a death sentence for anyone signing this. How far and fast they can progress we will see in 2024.

EU can well happen since there is no more FTA with Russia that derailed 2013 agreement with EU - and Russians don’t have a quarrel with Ukraine joining EU per se. They do need to implement denazification laws as Poland and Hungary will veto Ukraine’s ascension without them.

2) Fighting over major population centers like Kherson, Nikolayev, Dnipro, Kharkov will require a lot more manpower which Russians don’t have at the moment. Let’s watch out for more mobilization waves which will ascertain their strategy to push onwards.

3) I doubt ultranationalists will overthrow the govt as they will lose US / EU support and will be quickly dismantled by Russians without it. So they have to play along even though I’m sure they hate Zelensky’s guts: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6652

Wow

pretty much sums it up. I mean, if you dont like to hear contrasting views, then a debating forum is not the place to be.

We have to envision a more desperate ukraine. Its always important to avoid a recency bias and our contemporary geopolitics. Afghanistan imploding overnight, Russia invading Ukraine, the October 7th massacre- you wouldn't anticipate any of these based on trends of events years before them. There was some buildup before the invasion, there were some curveballs. Its like I've said about the 2024 election, we can't really figure what will matter in the election now, because at this point in Trump's 2020 election we were only starting to learn about covid.

What happens to Ukraine if Russia starts advancing across the whole Donbass? If western bribe money dries up like it did in Afghanistan, and the army is fleeing. The government in Kyiv won't be secure, and the actors looking to displace them won't necessarily be rational or allied with the west. The whole history of Ukrainian nationalism has been one of opportunistic alliances, with and against the sides of wars, sometimes swapping sides midconflict, or being betrayed by their side like the lienz cossacks. Maybe there's a future where nationalists overthrow zelensky not to pursue an even more rabid anti-russian policy, but to sue for peace and make concessions or even join them willingly. You can't call it unthinkable if its pretty much what happened with the Chechens.
This doesn't necessarily require a future in which Russia crosses the Dnipro, or even taking over major population centers. If Russia starts steamrolling and is bombing population centers again, not necessarily able to occupy them but able to bomb them to rubble, the citizenry might be ready to surrender.


All that said, its just near impossible to prognosticate. Right now we know Russia is winning, Russia is picking up serious momentum in its territorial gains across multiple sectors, Ukraine is losing international support, they're running out of not just ammo but importantly troops, Russia is not. Russia weathered the sanctions without any problems and the unaligned world refused to align against them. If Biden loses in 2024 then Trump will have no reason to carry on this proxy war, and even if Biden wins in 2024 he won't have an electoral purpose in dragging out the conflict to use as a truncheon against Republicans, because its going to be festering. Lets remember the arc Obama followed in Syria, because its been such a close parallel for Ukraine. We sent weapons to Syria, the media made big sob stories out of white helmet PR ops even though they were literally ISIS / Al Qaeda members, and eventually the conflict soured so much Obama was forced to do a 180 and hand the country back to Russia by allying with the Kurds to kill the same fuckers we just armed a few years earlier. Everything looks bad for Ukraine right now and all the historical parallels are miserable at best. That should inform our best guess of how it will go, but we still can't know

Nobody has said Putin likes NATO so that's just you rambling again about Chrimea, something nobody has brought up. The justification he gave for the invasion, in the Tucker interview is however not NATO encroachment. I'm sorry you disagree with Putin on Putins justifications for the war, but I really can't help you with that. It's just a few hours of interview, you should really watch it.

"You have a problem with Scott commenting on the Russia/Ukraine conflict and instead of challenging his comments you play it on the man saying he's not qualified to comment because of convictions in the past." - Because he is not a credible source, he is an admitted state actor who switched from one state to the other because he is a convicted pedophile who couldn't work in the U.S anymore. Imagine if i sent you a video from a Russian potato farmer who defected and was paid by Joe Biden on camera who said "Ukraine are certainly going to win the war." Why would you care? Its a random paid actor potato farmer. Are you saying you would take his opinion seriously, possibly even call him an expert? I personally wouldn't.

"The man has valuable experience (US military, foreign policy / weapons inspector) meaning his opinions matter whether you like him or not. That's the point here." - I have told you multiple times why Scott Ritter has absolutely no expertise what so ever, and you even agree with me that he isn't an expert. You have said as much yourself. Ritter has no expertise in Russian geopolitics, he has never worked with eastern european foreign policy and he admits as much himself. Nobody is saying Scott Ritter cant identify a missile (for the 48th time), but he is a state actor and a layman in terms of the conflict in Ukraine, these are just the facts. You can disagree with them all you want, but they wont change. Do you disagree?

"You don't like the guy because he's critical of US foreign policy" - My first academic thesis was a critique of the U.S war on terror, a paper where I quote the same Weapons Inspection team Ritter was a part of in 1998. You know absolutely nothing about my political positions and it's clear as day. You are arguing against a strawman and I genuinely think that is sad.

"he's a US state actor don't you know that he worked for the US govt" (in the past lol) and then go like "hey I meant he works for the Kremlin so he's a Russian state actor didn't you get that" - Scott Ritter is a state actor for the Kreml, he gets paid to hold speeches and he writes for state owned Russian media. Scott Ritter was also (as you have admitted and you point to as something positive) a state actor for the U.S in a military capacity. This is also not a secret, and has been discussed ad nauseum.

Nobody is cancelling anything, nobody has any pity for you, or Scott Ritter. You are not opressed. We are having a civilized discussion right now about Ritter, nobody is disregarding him or your opinion outright. Please get a grip and stay on point thanks.

He only got convicted of trying to speak to children and pretend he was a child three times, it's ok cause he was talking to a fed apparently. You couldnt make these defenses up even if you tried.

round and round we go, its not my problem if you have a personal grievance with scott ritter. The focus here should be the content relating to the war. go refute that. if you want to talk about pedo's or what not, just make your own thread but that is not my cup of tea. You are leaping to way too many assumptions here. There is no need to defend or condemn scott ritter for events not related to the war. you can wrap up your views of scott ritter and tie them all together with a ribbon but at the end of the day I simply dont care.

scott ritter can at times be a dog with a bone, he is blunt, disillusioned with aspects of his country/government, any of those are ample reason to view him in moderation. pick one, build a bridge and move on.

Stop consuming content from convicted paedophiles and expecting others to agree that its a credible or useful source of information.

This isn't that complicated.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 18 2024 05:41am