just a minor point from me:

If Russia was losing badly on the battlefield, calling for a ceasefire in which they get to keep Ukrainian territory which they seized illegitimately, but cannot hold by military means, would be preposterous.

so by this logic, If Ukraine was...hypothetically, losing badly on the battlefield, calling for a ceasefire in which they get to keep territory currently seized illegitimately by Russia, but which Ukraine cannot hold by military means, would be preposterous, and could only be reclaimed as part of a "deal". As Ukraine has repeatedly said no to deals with Russia, Ukraine must face the prospect of being given a shit deal (or worse, like Brexit, the prospect of "No Deal" looms).

This post was edited by ferdia on Aug 8 2025 03:34pm

Well, if only the situation on the battlefield determined the outcome of wars, diplomacy wouldn't exist and every war would end with total destruction or unconditional surrender. Fact of the matter is that Russia would have to pay a hefty price, both in terms of lives and rubles, to push further. Maybe they would eventually accomplish all of their goals if the war continued at the present rate for another 5 to 8 years - but is that really worth it? Would their allies be down for that? Also note that an ongoing conflict comes with some degree of risk that the tides of the war turn against them. Not looking likely atm, but can't be ruled out.


Using an American football metaphor, I think of it like this:
It's the SuperBowl, 4th down at the 9 yard line with 55 seconds left to play and you have the option to go for a field goal which would put you up 8 points. Do you take it or go for the TD which would unequivocally clinch the game?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 8 2025 03:53pm

Alaska???

This is pretty clear to me. The West hypothetically could seize those annexed territories by military means, but that would necessarily mean US and EU troops on the ground which is a non-starter.

I dont understand what your saying. Russia has clear (well to me anyway) military objectives, and the concept of price is not relevant. objectives are relevant. No Nato, No military build up for Ukraine. A military framework with the US to prevent this from reoccuring.

is Russia going to get what it wants diplomatically ? No. does this mean it should not try the diplomatic route? no.

This post was edited by ferdia on Aug 8 2025 06:05pm

Should have been obvious Trump was angling for a summit the moment he started escalating his demands and deadlines. Most predictable negotiating style ever, and Russia won't fail to notice because they aren't morons. Yet it might also give the diplomatic cover both sides need to give the appearance of acceptable concessions as they meet in the 'middle'

So all eyes are on Alaska, one week from today. What kind of pomp and ceremony can we expect? Won't be a full state visit, but they'll both want photo ops

The point is that Russia has a massive advantage in resources / manpower and is winning this war. Ukraine is running out of everything and NATO simply can't keep up it's that simple.

Thinking that they can force Russia to accept a ceasefire is preposterous, no country would ever accept this in this situation.

so more and more information is coming out now about Trump and Putin's upcoming meeting and the EU and Ukraine appear to be...somewhat...agitated. a real popcorn moment coming up i feel.

Lower level talks and probably some rough framework exists already. At this point it's probably that last mile. They wouldn't be meeting if there was a huge gap in general expectations on what a peace looks like.

Ukraine is not toothless to be sidelined here. If they truly want to refuse to lay down arms and accept any reasonable peace deal, they aren't limited to just ignoring it. Ukraine could launch radical attacks designed to disrupt negotiations, or even attack US/EU targets. That might seem far fetched until we remember the Zelensky regime has loose control over the Nationalist and Azov Nazi forces who nearly mutinied after disastrous losses, and those nationalists have already tried to assassinate Trump. Twice.

The biggest impetus of the October 7th attack was Israel normalizing relations with the KSA, which would sideline and isolate Hamas. They saw themselves being cornered on the chessboard and lashed out, they knew if Israel and the Saudis and Qatar and Dubai are all aligned against Iran and Hamas, they'd be outplayed diplomatically and militarily. Its been two years and where are we now? France and the UK want to recognize a Palestinian state and join the BDS movement.

We're in both a time of potential peace making and potential chaos unfolding, walking that razor's edge. We can at least be aware of the seemingly unforeseeable dangers