The War in the Ukraine

My position is the same it always was - Russia should demand what the west always demands - full, unconditional surrender, and Ukraine leaving itself to Putin's mercy (or lack thereof). On Russia's side, personally I'd take everything as far as Dnieper in the east, cut off access to the sea (Odessa), install a friendly regime in Kiev (Yanukovych or such) with a bunch of military bases surrounding the country "just in case" - Belarus, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk etc..

Ukraine deprived of its eastern territories would IMO be surprisingly easy to control. Something like a third of population of such a satellite would be centered around Kiev, meaning they just have to stay in control of the city. To that end, Russians could just set up a major military base on the Russian side of the river, and quickly move in, if whoever they put in power got ousted. Aside from that, the biggest city in case of rebellion would be Lvov, hardly enough of a powerbase for a NATO satellite.

ansy1968 said:

@tank3487 @gelgoog @cn_habs Thanks for the info, the reason why I ask the question if the Russian didn't incorporate the whole of Ukraine (except for Galicia) then it defeat the purpose of SMO. Russia will be in the quagmire if they let a Ukraine state exist. My thesis as many had stated here, Ukraine is facing a demographic problem, with many leaving and may never come back, those who stayed with economic situation as worse as they are, maybe joining Russia looks attractive than Joining the EU.

And with it maybe maintaining order in occupied land is attainable as Putin indicate that he is not interested in Galicia and let Poland, Romania and Hungary sort out this problem for him (a strategic masterstroke if you ask me, let Nato members fight among themselves)

Click to expand...

Do not leave Galicia either. It will become a rump state like Taiwan with technical claim on rest of Ukraine. End it completely. As for disintegrating EU, US did a better job than Russia ever could have.

FriedButter said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Depending on the RU or UA source. Supposedly 18-20 strategic bombers are slamming into Ukraine at the moment. Multiple explosions reportedly in Lviv, Khmelnitsky, Kiev, Kharkov, Nikolaev, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, Kanatop, and Zaporozhye.

Click to expand...

I can't believe it. After 3 years they finally activated strategic bombardment?

Tootensky said:

My position is the same it always was - Russia should demand what the west always demands - full, unconditional surrender, and Ukraine leaving itself to Putin's mercy (or lack thereof). On Russia's side, personally I'd take everything as far as Dnieper in the east, cut off access to the sea (Odessa), install a friendly regime in Kiev (Yanukovych or such) with a bunch of military bases surrounding the country "just in case" - Belarus, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk etc..

Ukraine deprived of its eastern territories would IMO be surprisingly easy to control. Something like a third of population of such a satellite would be centered around Kiev, meaning they just have to stay in control of the city. To that end, Russians could just set up a major military base on the Russian side of the river, and quickly move in, if whoever they put in power got ousted. Aside from that, the biggest city in case of rebellion would be Lvov, hardly enough of a powerbase for a NATO satellite.

Click to expand...

Bro, you forgot what led to this in first place: disintegration of Soviet Union. Giving up full control for a friendly regime is what led to this mess in first place. It would be foolish to make the same mistake twice.

If Russia cannot obtain unconditional surrender of Ukraine, then it must compromise. If it manage, full annexation is 100% the best pick.

The current mess isn't because of leaving control to a friendly regime, but because of leaving control to a friendly regime with no "punishment" option in case of regime change. Russia lost power in Kiev twice, and neither time was it ready to intervene in defence of its interests (the second time in 2014 it did the best it could, which was not enough). Here I'm proposing turning the rump state into basically an enlarged version of Transnistria.

The idea of full anexation could maybe work long term, but in the short term it would be a PR nightmare - those western territories would turn into a festering wound, with sabotage, protests, marches, western interference. And since it's "your home country" now, the pro-west saboteurs would have a free pass not only in their region, but would be able to spread their sabotage all over Russia proper. There would be shootings, assassinations, bombings. Look at how much trouble Chechenya caused in the 90s and 2000s. And this would be a lot more intense - bigger population, more weapons, NATO interference, and a lot bigger area to control. I say let them steam in their own satellite state. Those who want to go west, will eventually leave. Those who want their own state will have some option of living their lives, and those desperate to rebell will end up going after their own kind. And as I've said, in case of regime change, the possibility of "Punishment" will be at the ready, unlike in 2014 and 2004/2005.

Polish TV right now has a piece of news, allegedly at 9 AM today a rocket fell somewhere in eastern Poland. I'm guessing it might have something to do with the missile strikes Russia conducted last night.

FriedButter said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Depending on the RU or UA source. Supposedly 18-20 strategic bombers are slamming into Ukraine at the moment. Multiple explosions reportedly in Lviv, Khmelnitsky, Kiev, Kharkov, Nikolaev, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, Kanatop, and Zaporozhye.

Click to expand...

What was the previous highest number of strategic bombers in the air for context?

ansy1968 said:

@tank3487 @gelgoog @cn_habs Thanks for the info, the reason why I ask the question if the Russian didn't incorporate the whole of Ukraine (except for Galicia) then it defeat the purpose of SMO. Russia will be in the quagmire if they let a Ukraine state exist.

Click to expand...

Historically, Russia always reintegrated Ukraine in several steps due to its size. I do not see why it would be different now.

Main objective of SMO are to ensure neutral status of Ukraine. Russia did not even try to annex Donbass initially. There are already published documents about negotiations in March 2022. It is just that Ukraine killed negotiations and Russia had decided official to annex 4 regions as punishment by referendums.

solarz said:

So they'll use older men. They'll use 60 year olds if they have to. Don't count on body counts to end this war.

The war will only end when one side loses the will to fight.

Click to expand...

Or losses the ability to fight. If the west tires of this war, it will end irrespective of how much the Ukrainians want to keep fighting.

gelgoog said:

Even if it wasn't for the Constitution forbidding it, there is little chance that Russia will give the land bridge to Crimea and control over the Sea of Azov area back to Ukraine after spilling so much blood for it.

Click to expand...

Land bridge to Crimea implies Ukrainian troops bordering Russian territory is a threat. You can apply this logic to Kharkiv or the entirety of Ukrainian state existence.

Why should Russia tolerate anything less than full conquest of Ukraine if we take your land bridge buffer zone to its full logical conclusion?

My understanding NATO troops on Russian borders was the issue.