Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

macross1984 t1_j22qi27 wrote

Russia is not serious about peace negotiation. Putin must be dreaming that no matter how painful it is Russia will emerge as final victor except as time passes he will be strangulated financially, his military ruined, his country end up as pariah of the West.

49

sandyfagina t1_j22syp9 wrote

>strangulated financially, his military ruined, his country end up as pariah of the West.

1 and 3 are givens. We have no idea how true 2 is.

Peace negotiations should be inevitable because neither side wants a forever war. Or is that a bad assumption?

7

macross1984 t1_j22wg5m wrote

At the rate Russia is losing its hardware the military is having difficult time replacing so much so that army is reactivating Soviet era battle tank that has sat in mothball for decades.

Their air force was supposed to clear the sky of Ukrainian air force but failed to do so and instead are getting shot down so much so that they rarely make sortie into Ukrainian territory.

Their navy have suffered major embarrassment when guided missile cruiser Moskova was sunk by Ukrainian cruise missiles and navy was forced to restrict movement of their ships in Black Sea due to fear of losing more ships.

Perhaps ruin is wrong term. More correctly, Russian military will be severely weakened and will be no shape to do another Ukrainian style invasion should the war continue unabated.

I read that estimated Russian troops killed in action or wounded already surpassed 100,000. That is a loss hard to swallow especially when Russia is on its way to shrinking population even before the war.

Still, I hope I am wrong and peace negotiation at least will be attempted by both countries.

14

sandyfagina t1_j22x7v8 wrote

That's true, it's clearly significantly weakened. I hope that's a driver for peace talks, but that depends on what Ukraine does.

Reasons for Russia's continuance are the fresh recruits and belief that existing production can hold the current defensive lines. Which is believable considering it's been a standstill for months. Or at least, not much changes in controlled territory on either side.

I guess that non-activity is a good sign? Both sides have mentioned negotiations recently. Peace is always preferable from a human perspective.

3

Puzzleheaded-Job2235 t1_j24lbro wrote

Generally the Russo Ukrainian War has had long periods of attritional fighting followed by rapid changes in territory when one side loses too many people to hold the current frontlines. So although it's a stalemate for now, things could change rapidly. Kherson was a months long slog with little signs of progress till the Russians suddenly retreated.

2

sandyfagina t1_j24mpw8 wrote

They're behind the river now, which they say makes it easier for them to hold out. That was the line predicted by Dmitri Alperovitch by the way, the expert who predicted the invasion 2 months before it happened.

1

Its_Just_A_Typo t1_j25zxs1 wrote

Ukraine is about to retake Kreminna, when they do, it will set up a series of dominoes falling as that cuts off crucial Ruz supply lines and then they'll lose a large part of Luhansk Oblast in one big shot.

1

foobarijk t1_j23gh75 wrote

The fact that the line hasn't moved does not mean there's no activity in the front. hundreds die per day in the trenches.

1

Fuddlemann t1_j235jj8 wrote

Might also explain the build-up on Russia's southern front of Mongolian Tatars itching to retake Moscow while Russia is in a weakened state.

0

krneki12 t1_j23gqnn wrote

South and Best Korea are still at war.

2

sandyfagina t1_j23zyv3 wrote

At least they stopped killing each other

2

krneki12 t1_j24vtry wrote

just saying that everything is still on the table at the moment.

There will be no peace talks until Ukraine feels secure enough, as 0 trust is given to Russian words.

1

sandyfagina t1_j252j5r wrote

Once you add the variable of security guarantees for both Ukraine and Russia, guaranteed by 3rd party countries, talks could be fruitful.

1

krneki12 t1_j25fqxq wrote

the first variable to check out is Russian soldiers inside Ukraine, peace talks will start when they go back home.

1

kambleton t1_j25q05p wrote

This point is impossible for this guy to understand. Third party guarantees roping other countries into a full scale third world war when Russia inevitably goes back on it's word like it did in February and a million times before.

0

sandyfagina t1_j25s4ng wrote

NATO is the reason Russia doesn't invade the Baltic states. Security guarantees for Japan aren't causing a war with China. You're getting an F on the basics.

2

medievalvelocipede t1_j23y80q wrote

>Peace negotiations should be inevitable because neither side wants a forever war. Or is that a bad assumption?

Unfortunately, yes. What's in Putin's interest is not the same as Russia's interest.

It would have been closer to the same if he wasn't fed bullshit all the time, but when you surround yourself with yes-men and kill anyone who disagrees, that's what you get.

Russia could continue to lob missiles at Ukraine indefinitely. At which point it depends on if sanity will prevail in Russia and Putin will fall out of a window repeatedly or whether we can offer to lighten sanctions to make them stop.

Personally I'd prefer a different kind of solution, but it's not one I'd imagine the western nations will stomach.

1

sandyfagina t1_j2402yp wrote

Even the US says Putin is getting more accurate info now

1

Cunning-Artifice t1_j22zdoy wrote

Unfortunately sometimes the path to true peace is to fight. If Ukraine negotiates with Russia, and the resulting agreement ends with Russia holding any more land than when they started this war the lesson will be that military conquest is still a viable strategy, and it will only be a matter of time before Putin decides to take another bite, or someone else decides to attack their neighbour, because, hey it worked for Russia. And if a peace is agreed to, the sanctions will probably be lifted, and the lesson taken from that will be that if you can tough out the sanctions and force your opponent to the negotiation table the sanctions will disappear, which will only encourage escalation.

Peace is a good goal, but without looking at the consequences and the lessons that will be taught, it will only be a fleeting thing.

In my opinion, a large part of the cause of WW2 were the conditions attached to the peace after WW1, and Chamberlain's proclamation of "peace in our time" probably increased the chances of a large scale war, when a less peaceful response might have averted the conflict escalating to the point that it did...

39

PubliusDeLaMancha t1_j24mgu7 wrote

Neville Chamberlain takes all the blame but people need to remember that the UK and France were democracies and that another war with Germany was wholly unpopular. Sure, we have the benefit of hindsight and knowing that France could have entirely destroyed the German state had they invaded while Germany was busy invading Poland... But the world doesn't work that way. A more aggressive posture from Chamberlain at the time likely would have just resulted in him being forced to resign.

As you rightfully point to the Treaty of Versailles as in many ways creating a scenario that would inevitably lead to a second war, have to understand that Russians feel the same way about the break up of the Soviet Union.

Recall the first world war, and the infamous Treaty of Brest Litovsk that ended the Russian Empires participation in the war. I think people forget that unlike in WW2, in the Great War Germany actually won on the eastern front and forced Russian surrender. This treaty would have deprived the Russian Empire of Finland, the Baltic States, and Ukraine.. This was seen as so cruel and intolerable that the Western Allies reversed it at the end of the war.

Now, compare the European territory lost in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk to the European territory lost in the Breakup of Soviet Union and you start to understand the Russian perspective. Territory that the entire world once understood to be Russian and allowed to remain so despite German conquest, less than 80 years later, a single lifetime, the world now acts like that territory should have never been Russian to begin with..

To be clear I'm not suggesting Russia should reconquer Soviet states, even if she were militarily capable of that. My point is only that a basis for an honest peace with Russia would be better if the West used Putins own logic against him rather than negotiate from a position of idealism.

While there might be a semblance of truth to Putins claim that the end of WW2/USSR left the world with historically anachronistic borders, it would be good to remind him that Russia benefited from that as well, namely Kaliningrad in Europe and the Kuril/Sakhalin island of Japan. The cession of those territories should be the first thing in any deal to recognize Crimea.

And for the record, this resulting agreement that military conquest is still a viable strategy against countries not in NATO is simply the status quo since NATOs inception. Changes nothing

1

macrofinite t1_j261rhe wrote

The comparison between the treaty of Versailles and the collapse of the USSR seems like one hell of a false equivalence, and suggesting anybody cater to it seems like trying to beat Putin at a rigged game.

Yeah, Versailles was a terrible solution in hindsight. But Germany had quite a bit of culpability in the millions of lives lost in the war, and the harsh terms can be understood from that perspective.

The USSR collapsed under its own weight. The other Soviet states chose to become independent. It’s literally nothing but petulant entitlement for the Russian Federation to lay claim to any part of them now.

If they want a more regional power base to counter NATO, perhaps they should try diplomacy rather than dick swinging, manipulation and conquest.

1

LefthandedCrusader t1_j28kcla wrote

A bit of culpability, yes. And France, Italy, Russia, Romania, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and the Americans also had that bit of culpability. I don't recall anybody forcing them into the war.

1

TronOld_Dumps t1_j231pu0 wrote

Russian leadership is a steamy pile of shit.

6

caaper t1_j235w7b wrote

Then Lavrov is the nasty corn piece

5

choose_an_alt_name t1_j25wkd5 wrote

Can someone update me in what was zelenskiys peace plan? Last i heard it was to take back everything pre2014

2

KingHershberg t1_j260f10 wrote

Russia retreats to pre-2014 borders

All war criminals prosecuted

"Guarantee this will never happen again"

"Respect the UN"

That's what I remember but there might be a couple more

IMO peace talks aren't really possible because both Ukraine and Russia's demands are unrealistic.

Russia wants to annex territory they don't even control and some other dumb stuff like Ukraine never joining NATO or the EU, while Ukraine wants Russia to willingly let them prosecute war criminals which would never happen, give up territory they controlled pre-war, which for Putin would be political suicide.

3

Deluste t1_j25evlv wrote

It’s time to start shelling Moscow

1

Snoo3014 t1_j269fa3 wrote

Wait so the only solution is for Ukraine to attack and push the Russians beyond artillery range?

Hmm I'm sure this will get Ukr to beg for peace more...

1