When you're losing a war, the option is to sue for peace.

How do you think this is supposed to work? Russia is fighting this war to push NATO back from their doorstep. They didn't even care much about the separatist regions, but were so unwilling to accept NATO expansion by color revolution that they invaded Ukraine to stop it. Now Ukraine is losing the war and wants a security guarantee that they will be safe from further conflict with Russia. And the only condition Zelensky will accept is a NATO foothold, whether by name or dressed up as peacekeepers. And either way its the same nonstarter for Russia.

Ukraine has no other options here, like Trump said they have no cards. Russia has a very simple set of options. They can keep fighting the war, winning and keep the screws turning tighter on Ukraine until it implodes, or they can get a peace deal on terms favorable to them, pushing NATO back and establishing Ukraine as a neutral buffer state. And that's the good scenario for us, because the status quo ante was Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence and it could slide back if our puppet act falls apart.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Mar 1 2025 03:04am

It's not a perfect metaphor and maybe a bit drastic, but isn't it kinda true, though? What happened to Ukraine over the past 20 years is a tragedy, the country and its citizens don't deserve this fate. Ukraine is now in a position where the only choice left to make is by which asshole (Trump's America or Putin's Russia) she gets screwed. And when Macron suggested a minerals deal of his own, it became clear that even the nice guy/knight in a shining armor (the EU) is ultimately a jerk who only wants one thing: plunder her treasures.

You ever heard, never draw when drawn upon?

Ukraine isn't seeking military dominance, just enough defense capacities to deter Russia from coming back. The big question is just how this could be accomplished.

It has become clear by now that the NATO countries aren't committed enough to the Ukrainian cause to risk actual war with Russia. Was kinda evident for years, all the Trump admin did was end the charade and make it official. On the flip side, the Europeans and Americans clearly don't trust Ukraine enough to equip them with actually strong weapons with which they could inflict truly hurting wounds on Russia in case of a future escalation. See all the dithering of Europeans about long-range missiles, or how it took years until they greenlit a small handful of older jets. And as yesterday's spat shows, Ukraine isn't fully trustworthy, so we really don't want to arm them up too much. See your point about the risk of a coup by the Azovites. (Which I think you're overstating, but it is indeed a possibility.)

There is a long list of key differences.

1. Due to its oil, the Middle East has a greater geostrategic significance than Eastern Europe.
2. Israel is the only democracy and ideological ally in the region, whereas there are plenty of alternatives to Ukraine in Eastern Europe.
3. Israel has been a key US ally for 70 years, Ukraine has only been one since 2013/14.
4. Success. Arms supplies to Israel lead to Israel kicking its opponents' heads in, arms supplies to Ukraine produced a drawn-out war of attrition.
5. Threat level. None of the countries surrounding Israel pose any military threat to the US or Europe whereas Russia is a more powerful foe, and in closer geographic proximity. This means that simply sending money or weapons doesn't cut it on its own, NATO would have to get involved more directly, for which there is no appetite.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 1 2025 03:34am

I guess the easiest way to solve this now is to force Zelensky to hold elections, make sure the right candidate wins (already pre-approved by Russia and USA) and let him sign the peace deal that the powerful want.

While it’s scary to think what’s happening in Ukraine now, it’s also scary to think what will be going on there after the war. The country is ruined economically, unemployment amongst military age men will skyrocket, nazi cult is strong, the oligarchs who own everything will lose their inflow of freshly laundered money from foreign aid…

This post was edited by kayko on Mar 1 2025 03:59am

Good post, I can agree with almost everything here.


The only minor disagreement is that I don't think the Russians want to officially capture much more territory than they hold currently. They def. want to finish up the conquest of all of the Donezk oblast, but I doubt that they want to push all the way to Kharkiv or Dnipro. Imho, the question isn't how much more land they're gonna steal, it's how much sovereignty they'll afford rump-Ukraine. I stand by my long-running argument that this war was not fought exclusively over NATO, but over Russia's sphere of influence more broadly.

And yes, Zelensky will imho be gone (one way or the other...) before Easter.

No matter what Trump says, it already were the Europeans which were footing the bulk of the bill for this war. Be it arms supplies, financial assistance, feeding 10 million Ukrainian refugees spread across the continent or the economic fallout. Likewise, it was always obvious that the Europeans would foot most of the rebuilding effort post-war.

This will only be a massive win for North America if the peace deal which will be signed in the coming months actually holds up in the long run and succeeds in pacifying this conflict once and for all.

This is precisely what was being litigated in front of the whole world at this press conference. It is a question of military dominance. The only guarantee Ukraine can have against Russia being a threat, is a military threat that would make invasion impossible. That means NATO presence, or nukes. Or simply beating Russia in a war and the Russians capitulating. That's the thing about victors in a war, the losers don't get to dictate the terms and demand a future where they have the dominant position. What guarantee did imperial japan have that America wouldn't pillage the japanese homelands and take their women as sex slaves like they had done in china and korea? Unconditional surrender. What guarantees did nazi germany have? When the Israelis and Palestinians or Hezbollah agree to their umpteenth ceasefire, what guarantees do they get it will never happen again?

You are hitting the nail on the head that NATO was never going to commit to Ukraine when it risks world war 3. And its been clear since the war began, and its why I kept calling out how suicidal and destructive the ukrainian ultranationlists infecting the Biden administration were, because they weren't just compromising American interests, they were going to get get Ukraine destroyed in the pull between east and west. Russia was always willing to invest force to secure their own back yard and we weren't willing to step in with a nuclear ultimatum that we would defend Ukraine even if it meant the brink of armageddon. We don't know whether such a threat would be a bluff or get called or get us all killed, because Biden meekly stood back and told Russia directly we would not fight on Ukraine's behalf and stood down so very publicly. And all the consequences have played out just as predictably as we expected, and when the next step we expect is all those weapons in the hands of an azovite coup, well that doesn't bode well

Well yeah, they aren't even in NATO, we had essentially no business defending, or helping Ukraine at all.
They knew damn well that what they were doing would cause Russia to invade but they did it anyways.
Russia had diplomatic cables with the USA, Germany, and France, threatening invasion if they did it.
You expect me to believe Ukraine wasn't in the loop?

Absolutely every post saying 'Russia Bad' is some Woe Be Me, Ukrainian bullshit.

This post was edited by PapaPsych on Mar 1 2025 03:51am