That's a fair argument, and I even agree with it. It still kinda contradicts previous arguments about Ukraine being on its absolutely last legs, manpower-wise. In this thread, certain users constantly harp on about Ukrainian press gangs aggressively snatching young men from the streets because the country is allegedly that desperate and that short on recruits, just as they harp on about how the nefarious West is fighting this war "to the last Ukrainian".



Well, after the talks in Istanbul led to no tangible progress, it's kinda too late for that. But before these talks, Russia had all the opportunity in the world to show such a gesture of good will. They didn't because they, in fact, don't want diplomatic progress just yet. At a minimum, Russia wants to finish its conquest of the full Donbas before they are willing to wrap this war up. But once negotiations start in earnest, the expectation will be that they lead to a ceasefire relatively shortly. Blowing the negotiations once they have properly begun risks drawing Trump's ire and increased US support for Ukraine, so they stall and delay the start of this process as much as they can.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 27 2025 07:44pm

Ukraine, through figures like Oleksiy Arestovych, has openly framed this conflict as only one phase in a longer-term struggle with Russia—implying that even a full-scale military victory wouldn’t bring lasting peace. It's also an established fact that Ukrainian authorities are now using increasingly aggressive conscription tactics, including detaining men in public places—clear evidence of a mounting manpower crisis.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has consistently discouraged negotiations, especially in the early stages of the war. Third-party mediation efforts—such as by Israel, Turkey, and even African nations—have been quietly undermined or dismissed. Ukraine has since amended its legal framework to explicitly prohibit negotiations with Vladimir Putin while he remains in power, effectively eliminating any current diplomatic pathway.

At the same time, the West continues to escalate the conflict: supplying tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and long-range missiles, with recent approvals allowing Ukraine to strike deep inside Russian territory. This isn’t a strategy aimed at resolution—it’s a commitment to indefinite escalation. Under these conditions, peace isn’t just out of reach—it’s no longer even a policy objective.

Take the Istanbul talks, for example—hailed at the time as “The Peace Deal.” In reality, they were nothing more than preliminary feelers, never backed by a credible, enforceable framework. It felt performative, as if Ukraine’s leadership went through the motions only to later declare: “See? Pointless. There’s nothing to negotiate.” That’s not diplomacy—it’s pretext.

15 reported iskander strikes in the past night with only a handful of targets. One got hit on video by 5 ballistic missiles in a row. Even with reported Russian production thats a huge commitment so something or someone important probably just got hammered hard.

I am just going to post this reminder:

In late 2022, U.S. intelligence intercepted serious internal Russian military discussions about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. These weren’t just casual comments—these were military-level preparations and planning, which the CIA took very seriously.

What followed was:

An intense global diplomatic effort—public and private—to dissuade Russia. Public statements like “the consequences will be catastrophic” and “no one wins a nuclear war.” Even China and India stepped in quietly to urge restraint. At the time, this was framed in the media as a general “reminder” to Russia not to use nukes. But months later, we learned the truth: it wasn’t just hypothetical. It was a near-decision.

So fast forward to 2025 and the West, ever forgetful, has decided its ok to bomb Russia with long range western missiles, whats the worst that could happen right? right ? F my life.

The range of missiles used by Ukraine thus far is 300km. I am struggling to fathom the range of drones - im reading 1500+ KM!! ), if anyone can chime in on this range for certain drones, feel free.

This post was edited by ferdia on May 28 2025 06:16am

Russia cannot win this war without China by their side. Hypothetically, if China had joined the Western sanctions, this war would have been over by October 2022. With this in mind, if they do something beyond the pale which prompts the bulk of the international community to turn on them (I assume North Korea and Eritrea will always stand on their side...), they are in big trouble. Since the use of tactical nukes is a gigantic escalation, they would need a damn good justification to prevent their allies from distancing themselves. One of their factories being hit by a Western-supplied long-range missile surely doesn't rise to this level, particularly since they are themselves shelling Ukraine with missiles and drones provided by Iran or assembled from Chinese-supplied gear on a daily basis. Definitely not enough to justify a nuclear first strike (even if it's with "only" tactical nukes.)


Another factor to keep in mind is that Russia can have no interest in ruling over irradiated rubble, so they can only use tactical nukes on targets they don't want to capture eventually. They couldn't use them in places like Mariupol, Kherson, they also cannot use them in Kramatorsk or around Kharkiv or Odessa. I guess the major target they could hit with nukes is Kyiv. But if there is one place which might have sufficient missile defense, it's the capital.

A ukrainian suicide bomber killed the deputy mayor of stavropol, which is more notable for the fact that Ukraine is now deploying suicide bombers

What's more, they don’t wear beards and don’t look like the female version of a Dementor.

China is not on Russia's side. China is on China's side. Also, if China did side with the US (totally unrealistic) we would be in WW3 territory, as Russia does not have the conventional capabilities to wage war with the West and China and it would be forced to go unconventional. We would not be in "war would have been over by Oct 2022" we would be at "world would have been over by Oct 2022". I think you are totally missing the point that has repeatedly been conveyed - this is an overreach by the US and an existential crisis by Russia. One is a play, the other is survival. If the West started bombing Moscow etc, intent on totally crippling Russia, we would, again, be in WW3 territory.

The worry has ever been of a western victory as it would provoke Russia into WW3. Now you can scoff at this all you like but this position has not changed since the war started.

This post was edited by ferdia on May 29 2025 08:57am

Who was talking about China declaring war on Russia and starting active warfare against them? I was talking about China stopping to shield Russia in the economic and diplomatic sphere. And in that case, even the current, half-assed way the West is waging this war would become insurmountable for Russia. Insurmountable in the sense of "they won't be able to subjugate Ukraine", not in the "NATO tanks parading on Red Square"-sense.

Likewise, who is talking about wholesale destruction of Russian infrastructure? The only thing which is truly on the table is the targeted destruction of a select few factories, railroads and airfields inside Russia which are directly supporting their war efforts in Ukraine. You make it sound as if Ukraine is about to target hospitals and apartment buildings in Moscow with a flurry of Tauruses...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 29 2025 01:10pm

Russia wants peace negotiations on their terms. So does Ukraine. Russia doesn't want to stop fighting because they believe they're winning, Ukraine wants to stop fighting because they believe they're losing. Peace is only achievable when both sides believe they have nothing more to win or lose.