based on what?

caveat: i debated on taking out the word peaceful in my next statement. ultimately i left it in. if my statement can be seen negatively or positively please try to look at it from a positive angle, it was not meant to be said negatively:

with reference to my statement - to clarify - What I am saying is, peaceful protest has driven cultural change and I would argue that the ability to peaceful protest has led to positive advancement. I am not saying go to war against nations that dont allow peaceful protest, I am saying that peaceful protest is a good thing for any country. You dont have to be a democracy to allow your people to have a difference of opinion.

trusting this clarifies my position, but just in case: I would have said, more dialogue (not direct interventin via coup or armed forces ok) should always be the go-to, and accept that not all counties share your views, but that does not give you the right to force them to change.

sorry for double post.



The Russian narrative has been that this is a "special operation". The Russian armed forces encircled Kiev, then retreated. (Yes they butchered civilians and commited god knows how many war crimes along the way). This could be considered as a warning. They then moved/repositioned east and are about to make the Donbass region hell on earth. After that occurs, it looks to me, that they will say "job done", noting they already stated on their media that "job done" had been achieved (i consider that they were referring to the "warning" when they said "Job Done" but i will read it again) and at that point they will return to the negotiation table. If they obliterate donbass they may just say, fine you keep it Ukraine, just stay neutral and let bygones be bygones.

I am not taking sides, i am merely hypothesising future events, from my understanding of the russian perspective.

Taken from TASS (still looking for the one re: "Job Done").

"Earlier, Ukraine stated that Kiev would agree to officially accept its neutral and non-nuclear status if security guarantees were given, which in their content and form would be similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Kiev considers that the permanent members of the UN Security Council (including Russia), as well as Germany, Israel, Italy, Canada, Poland, and Turkey, could become guarantors. Moscow believes that security guarantees should be provided not only to Russia, but also to Ukraine and all European countries."

/edit it looks like they removed all of the march content relating to the invasion from TASS.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 10 2022 03:04am

i don't consider the encirclement and subsequent withdrawal from kyiv a deliberate "warning". everything points to a failed attempt at taking the city. yes, russia regrouped and they are going to completely obliterate and massacre "de-nazify and liberate" ukraine's east now, but i think it really depends on the state of their forces, economy, and ukrainian opposition left after that, if russia makes another run for the rest of the country or not. i simply don't see anything that suggests a "stop of the invasion", specifically at may 9th, to be "highly plausible" to be honest.

This post was edited by fender on Apr 10 2022 03:05am

i agree that regime change by russia on ukraine looked to be the better option (for russia). i simply dont know if that was putins intention or not. I just look at what has happened. i.e. Russia came in, stopped, and retreated. could Russia have flattened Kiev ? Yes. Did they? No.

I dont mind being wrong re: May and I dont mind waiting a month to see whether I am right or wrong, its just a guess.
to clarify one point, i would say by 9th May, rather then on 9th May. i.e. that the invasion may stop before that date. I dont see a big significance with the 9th of May, I see Russia have done part of 1 of 2, and are about to to part 2 of 2, and that they will have nothing left to do after that.

I dont see it in Russian interests to continue the war longer beyond getting the Ukraine nuetrality point. obviously Finland joining nato could completely sink my "guess".

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 10 2022 03:14am

i see. the reason i asked (both you and hamster) is that a specific date and "highly plausible" sounded to me like it was based on some kind of evidence or expert evaluation, not just a random guess. honest misunderstanding then.

can you elaborate on the two steps? russia has not formulated any specific war goals, they have been all over the place (conquering the whole country / conquering donbas / conquering the black sea coast / just forcing ukraine to not join nato / replacing the government with a russian puppet, belarus style...) - one of the reason why peace talks have been basically impossible to negotiate - so what do you personally consider those two "parts" to be?

This post was edited by fender on Apr 10 2022 03:14am

Job Done btw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Mass_rapes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes#2022

On the Russian TASS platform Putin had said last month that the primary goal of the special operation had been achieved. That article (actually, all of march) appears to have since been removed. I dont know if its just me or if they removed it. I believe I posted a snippet or the headline around 50-100 pages ago in this thread.

The 2 part goal from Russia as I see it were:

1. Ukraine does not join Nato
2. Russia "resolves" eastern Ukraine

As I understand it, Russia is not happy with what has happened for years in eastern ukraine and originally wanted to land grab it. This is not something that Ukraine will agree with and looks to be the main major stumbling block remaining in the negotiations. Therefore russian interest is primary focused on a solution that it will palate. Part 2 to my mind is some "manoevering" relating to Eastern Ukraine (i.e. not related to Kiev or Western Ukraine).

where "manoeuvring" could entail god knows what.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 10 2022 03:31am

You think it's highly plausible the Russians will take the remainder of the Donbas in a month when they're still not in full control of Mariupol after 6 weeks

There are counterattacks in the direction of Kherson which is pressuring Russian forces in the area

There is also a significant transfer of Ukrainian forces to the Eastern front now the threat in the North has abated

If Russia won't stop until they control all of the Donbas, then everything points to it being a war lasting many months

No, I think they may literally take the gloves off and flatten the entire region. They might do this to cut their losses. Yes I agree with you, the alternative is that it lasts months and months.
Russia must know that ultimately they need to settle things at the end of the day at the table. They know Ukraine will not budge on this point (ceding land) so I am honestly leaning towards Russia stopping and going back to where they came from over the next month after they have completed some form of "part 2".

guys, im not an expert, this is just a view i have based on what I have read.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 10 2022 03:32am