The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
The west were asking Russia to rebuild what they destroyed in Ukraine, they will need to rebuild Novorossiya for sure... not a lot of stuff upright.
Disappointing to hear Shilao isn't thinking through the greater geopoliticial consequences.
Both sides have unrealistic expectations from each other. Russia wants basically an unconditional surrender from Ukraine and Ukraine wants Russia to go back to pre February 24 borders. There's no way either side is going to agree to anything with the way things are on the ground. Ukraine and Russia could have peace talks in Turkey, Israel or the Moon and they won't agree to anything by themselves.
The only way I see things could change is if America, the EU or China use leverage to force a side to reduce their demands. America could threaten to cut off aid to the Ukraine, and China could threaten join in western sanctions against Russia. That's what "brokering peace" would really amount to.
I don't see why China should be the one telling a side to back down. If America/EU abandoned Ukraine it would just be another South Vietnam/Afghanistan. China telling Russia to back down is far more dangerous. First I don't think it'll stop Russia but make them more desperate. Second it'll turn Russian opinion against China, and they are the ones holding nukes in this conflict. I'm happy with 40 years of no tanks on the border and their nukes all pointing towards America. I'm also happy with America pouring in what will likely be hundreds of billions a year into a black hole while undergoing economic recession and widespread civil unrest. Hopefully it'll be a catalyst for the inevitable.
The only advantage to having peace would be the humanitarian aspect, i.e. the prospect of stopping war. While that would be good I don't think it's worth the price to Russia-China relations. Wanting to be the one to broker peace over America is the small minded thinking I'd expect from countries like Turkey.
As to why Zelensky is happy with China's position. He knows China isn't a country that will succumb to verbal threats and it may make things worse. The current situation is the best he can expect.
Even in the North Korean nuclear situation, China's preference is the Six-party talks. Similarly, China will go through the UNSC for settlement. The premise that there is a trilateral RUS-CHN-UKR negotiated settlement is farfetched and very politically risk (e.g. alienating Russia, alienating Ukr, no one is happy) with little-to-zero benefits from it. Plus, there is guaranteed Ukrainian territorial concessions (Crimea/DNR/LNR/much more), and why would China want to be associated with an defacto unequal treaty?
DPR now claims full control of Lyman and switching back to the Russian name Krasny Liman. They've already put up the new signage
Was:
Now:
Was:
Now:
Oof, oh that's a lot of dead NATO personnel in one go.
I wonder how the hell did they get that intelligence. HUMINT?
Russian MOD also said this:
If true they're really doing something right with their reconnaissance these days, can now hit time sensitive targets.
Last edited:
The more gains Russia achieves, the more the west gets desperate and start to supply Ukraine with their own western gears which greatly helps in friend and foe situations. And these weapons won't make a difference in the end.
Weapons like the US HIMARS will take weeks to reach the front lines and in limited numbers.
I don't know why they can't see that this war is not winnable anymore for Ukraine.
Instead of trying to encourage negotiations, they are doing the opposite.
Weapons like the US HIMARS will take weeks to reach the front lines and in limited numbers.
I don't know why they can't see that this war is not winnable anymore for Ukraine.
Instead of trying to encourage negotiations, they are doing the opposite.
Last edited:
I missed this, but one of the few western analysts who isn't full "Ukraine is winning" has changed his assessment of the war. Pro-Russian channels are already calling him a Washington shill.
The short version is that while he still thinks that the Ukraine forces will be annihilated in the east, but the Ukraine will be using the time bought to create a new army armed with NATO weapons. The $40 billion provided by the west is a game changer, as it exceeds Russia's annual budget, and that Ukraine may be able to grind out a long term stalemate around the Dnieper. Weirdly he goes on to suggest Russia needs to "drastically escalate" their strategy for phase 3, that sounds very close to advising Russia use nuclear weapons against NATO.
That's definitely a possibility, but he's missing a few key points. Even ignoring the PPP disparity, a single transfer of $40 billion isn't the same as an annual budget. Russia's military has been built up with decades worth of military spending.
He's also missing the economic aspect. While Russian oligarchs and lots of businesses that were dependent on the west will be in trouble, the overall economic health of the country is fine. State revenues are higher than ever, and they are only going to get better with wheat prices and so on. Any economic problem Russia has is the exact same the west is experiencing through inflation.
All they need to do is maintain a war that is costing them what the Saudis are spending in Yemen. For America its much worse. This is costing them much more than Iraq or Afghanistan. Ukrainians are losing equipment at a much higher rate than US forces did, and everything Ukraine loses is going to need to be replaced or Ukraine loses combat effectiveness.
Moreover there's the economic cost. Ukraine today is under full naval blockade and has had a lot of their industry damaged. The oil, food and other supplies they they need to stay alive will need to be provided for loans they will never be able to pay back. The $40 billion America sent in aid won't last them through summer in my opinion. I think this war will cost America alone $100 billion a year in aid, which is much more than America was spending in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
We don't know what Putin's plan is. A long drawn out war may be better than a short one if it bankrupts America. That certainly would be better than advising Putin to start escalating the war and risk turning into a nuclear exchange, which is what it sounds like to me. A lot of his articles get translated into Russian and posted on pro-Kremlin channels. Given his former military rank I'm sure people in the Kremlin will be listening to what he has to say.
That's definitely a possibility, but he's missing a few key points. Even ignoring the PPP disparity, a single transfer of $40 billion isn't the same as an annual budget. Russia's military has been built up with decades worth of military spending.
He's also missing the economic aspect. While Russian oligarchs and lots of businesses that were dependent on the west will be in trouble, the overall economic health of the country is fine. State revenues are higher than ever, and they are only going to get better with wheat prices and so on. Any economic problem Russia has is the exact same the west is experiencing through inflation.
All they need to do is maintain a war that is costing them what the Saudis are spending in Yemen. For America its much worse. This is costing them much more than Iraq or Afghanistan. Ukrainians are losing equipment at a much higher rate than US forces did, and everything Ukraine loses is going to need to be replaced or Ukraine loses combat effectiveness.
Moreover there's the economic cost. Ukraine today is under full naval blockade and has had a lot of their industry damaged. The oil, food and other supplies they they need to stay alive will need to be provided for loans they will never be able to pay back. The $40 billion America sent in aid won't last them through summer in my opinion. I think this war will cost America alone $100 billion a year in aid, which is much more than America was spending in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
We don't know what Putin's plan is. A long drawn out war may be better than a short one if it bankrupts America. That certainly would be better than advising Putin to start escalating the war and risk turning into a nuclear exchange, which is what it sounds like to me. A lot of his articles get translated into Russian and posted on pro-Kremlin channels. Given his former military rank I'm sure people in the Kremlin will be listening to what he has to say.
Last edited:
Ye, because 40 billion bucks can create a army out of thin air, right? At this point this may well be the so far biggest money laundering scheme of the 21st century.
Same idiots in germany saying they'll stock up german military spending by 100.000.000.000 € this year. We have a recession and double digit inflation, 100.000.000.000 € are spend way better in other things than tanks....
Try send a civilian with an 3000$ nato battle rifle into a fight, see how it ends....