Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Hindsight was 2020]

Looks like the Free Russia guys are at it again
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1767515065815634316?s=12
https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1767442625856983153?t=jAnAGcX2dMewXxCk...

[Virginiá]

re: new US military aid package

This is apparently based on savings from contracts the US negotiated previously under USAI funding.

https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1767584964051157192

And for Europe:

https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1767579716985266264

[Flyersfan232]

Klaus Iohannis as secretary general would be a pr disaster for nato

[Open Source Intelligence]

re: new US military aid package

This is apparently based on savings from contracts the US negotiated previously under USAI funding.

I laughed at that when I saw it. "Savings from unmentioned Pentagon programs." The Pentagon has failed annual audits consecutively for years by large margins. There's probably some internal slush fund to grease the gears on things and they pulled from that.

[Storr]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

[jaichind]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

     It's ultimately the same challenge that has existed from the start; Russia and Ukraine have very different ideas of what an acceptable outcome for the war looks like. Negotiations are possible in principle, but fruitless in practice unless someone walks their stance back (or is otherwise willing to give considerable concessions). I suspect that Russia is making noise about pushing far beyond the territory they have already staked a claim to as a means of intimidating Ukraine into making concessions, because it's obvious that Ukraine won't walk back unless they are faced with a catastrophic alternative. Putin's remarks are a dominance play, because being seen as wanting negotiations smacks of weakness.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

     It's ultimately the same challenge that has existed from the start; Russia and Ukraine have very different ideas of what an acceptable outcome for the war looks like. Negotiations are possible in principle, but fruitless in practice unless someone walks their stance back (or is otherwise willing to give considerable concessions). I suspect that making noise about pushing far beyond the territory they have already staked a claim to as a means of intimidating Ukraine into making concessions, because it's obvious that Ukraine won't walk back unless they are faced with a catastrophic alternative. Putin's remarks are a dominance play, because being seen as wanting negotiations smacks of weakness.

Or maybe the guy who time and time again has said/demonstrated his motivation is to effectively wipe Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake might be aiming for wiping Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake.

[oldtimer]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

I've made comparisons to the Civil War a long time ago, probably at least a year.

But my comparison was to the military incompetence of Russia's civilian and military leadership being comparable to the Union side.

They still don't take war seriously enough to win, though I guess with the war lasting so long they must have learned something by now, so it would be more difficult to beat them.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

[Storr]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

I can't fault Putin's logic. If he feels like he's turning the tide of the war and can eventually win, why would he negotiate? My main gripe is with those that claim halting funding to Ukraine would end the bloodshed and bring peace. Even if the West stopped supporting Ukraine completely, the Ukrainians wouldn't stop fighting because they're fighting for the existence of their country. Ukraine facing uncertainty from its allies (resulting in it "running out of ammunition" as Putin says) only emboldens Putin to conquer more territory, instead of encouraging him to negotiate. 

[GoTfan]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

That's called right of conquest.

[jaichind]

I've made comparisons to the Civil War a long time ago, probably at least a year.

But my comparison was to the military incompetence of Russia's civilian and military leadership being comparable to the Union side.

They still don't take war seriously enough to win, though I guess with the war lasting so long they must have learned something by now, so it would be more difficult to beat them.

In my mind, I had the USA Civil War as a model for this conflict a while ago as well with the modification of no blockade of CSA and UK/France sending a good amount of economic and military aid to CSA.

The conflict starts with the stronger side (USA, Russia) launching a quick offensive with everyone expecting a quick victory.  Then it turns out that they were rusty while the weaker side (CSA, Ukraine) outperformed leading to the war dragging out.  The conflict then had offensives on both sides with the attacker taking more losses but the stronger side (USA, Russia) gaining more ground.  The war then becomes one of attrition with the weaker side (CSA, Ukraine) holding on but with time clearly going against them.  There were on-and-off talks to end the war but due to political imperative, neither side can back down from their maximalist positions.

One thing that I do think many miss about this analogy which I think is apt is that the USA's economy and industry actually emerge stronger from the conflict.   I think due to the mobilization of the war and ironically because of the sanctions Russia is experiencing an import substitution boom and learning to produce products that they were never able or willing to produce on their own.  Russia economy will emerge as more diverse and resilient as a result of this conflict.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

     It's ultimately the same challenge that has existed from the start; Russia and Ukraine have very different ideas of what an acceptable outcome for the war looks like. Negotiations are possible in principle, but fruitless in practice unless someone walks their stance back (or is otherwise willing to give considerable concessions). I suspect that making noise about pushing far beyond the territory they have already staked a claim to as a means of intimidating Ukraine into making concessions, because it's obvious that Ukraine won't walk back unless they are faced with a catastrophic alternative. Putin's remarks are a dominance play, because being seen as wanting negotiations smacks of weakness.

Or maybe the guy who time and time again has said/demonstrated his motivation is to effectively wipe Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake might be aiming for wiping Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake.

Certainly it's possible for both of these to be true in some way, simultaneously?

[jaichind]

Or maybe the guy who time and time again has said/demonstrated his motivation is to effectively wipe Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake might be aiming for wiping Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake.

There is some logic behind this approach.  I do think Ukraine has to understand that by not offering peace terms where they go halfway toward meeting Russian demands they miss the chance to split Russian domestic opinion against Putin if he turns down such a deal.  As it is the Ukraine position merely means a large percentage of Russian public opinion will back Putin to continue to war until their goals are met.

[jaichind]

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/germanys-scholz-doubles-down-on-opposition-to-taurus-missile-delivery-to-ukraine/

"Germany’s Scholz doubles down on opposition to Taurus missile delivery to Ukraine"

[Hindsight was 2020]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

     It's ultimately the same challenge that has existed from the start; Russia and Ukraine have very different ideas of what an acceptable outcome for the war looks like. Negotiations are possible in principle, but fruitless in practice unless someone walks their stance back (or is otherwise willing to give considerable concessions). I suspect that making noise about pushing far beyond the territory they have already staked a claim to as a means of intimidating Ukraine into making concessions, because it's obvious that Ukraine won't walk back unless they are faced with a catastrophic alternative. Putin's remarks are a dominance play, because being seen as wanting negotiations smacks of weakness.

Or maybe the guy who time and time again has said/demonstrated his motivation is to effectively wipe Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake might be aiming for wiping Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake.

Certainly it's possible for both of these to be true in some way, simultaneously?

No because PIT presenting Putin as thing from a rational realpolitik position while I’m arguing he’s completely irrational at this point

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

     It's ultimately the same challenge that has existed from the start; Russia and Ukraine have very different ideas of what an acceptable outcome for the war looks like. Negotiations are possible in principle, but fruitless in practice unless someone walks their stance back (or is otherwise willing to give considerable concessions). I suspect that making noise about pushing far beyond the territory they have already staked a claim to as a means of intimidating Ukraine into making concessions, because it's obvious that Ukraine won't walk back unless they are faced with a catastrophic alternative. Putin's remarks are a dominance play, because being seen as wanting negotiations smacks of weakness.

Or maybe the guy who time and time again has said/demonstrated his motivation is to effectively wipe Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake might be aiming for wiping Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake.

Certainly it's possible for both of these to be true in some way, simultaneously?

No because PIT presenting Putin as thing from a rational realpolitik position while I’m arguing he’s completely irrational at this point

Putin wanting Ukraine and thinking it would make Russia more important is arguably the most rational impulse he has in regards to his thought process regarding the war.
Why is it automatically "irrational" for a Russian leader to want a vassalized Ukraine? Apparently?

[jaichind]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-agency-asks-dod-improve-data-accuracy-military-equipment-sent-ukraine-2024-03-13/

"US agency asks DoD to improve data accuracy of military equipment sent to Ukraine"

Looks like USA DoD is having problem tracking how military equipment it sent to Ukraine is being used

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-14/russia-election-putin-s-war-economy-boosts-outlook-for-many?embedded-checkout=true

"Putin Points to War’s Economic Windfall With Russia Set to Vote"

Wages have soared by double digits, the ruble has stabilized, and poverty and unemployment are at record lows. For the country’s lowest earners — a key constituency for the Kremlin — salaries over the last three quarters have risen faster than for any other segment of society, clocking an annual growth rate of about 20%, Federal Statistics Service data show. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

     It's ultimately the same challenge that has existed from the start; Russia and Ukraine have very different ideas of what an acceptable outcome for the war looks like. Negotiations are possible in principle, but fruitless in practice unless someone walks their stance back (or is otherwise willing to give considerable concessions). I suspect that making noise about pushing far beyond the territory they have already staked a claim to as a means of intimidating Ukraine into making concessions, because it's obvious that Ukraine won't walk back unless they are faced with a catastrophic alternative. Putin's remarks are a dominance play, because being seen as wanting negotiations smacks of weakness.

Or maybe the guy who time and time again has said/demonstrated his motivation is to effectively wipe Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake might be aiming for wiping Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake.

Certainly it's possible for both of these to be true in some way, simultaneously?

No because PIT presenting Putin as thing from a rational realpolitik position while I’m arguing he’s completely irrational at this point

Putin wanting Ukraine and thinking it would make Russia more important is arguably the most rational impulse he has in regards to his thought process regarding the war.
Why is it automatically "irrational" for a Russian leader to want a vassalized Ukraine? Apparently?

Because his motivation is blood and soil ahistorical revisionism

[Open Source Intelligence]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

That's called right of conquest.

Human history has existed for a very long time. It's foolish and arrogant of people to think we're so enlightened that the last 80 years have changed how the last few thousand years operated. And right of conquest still exists in the modern world, it's just not done with bullets typically, it's done via economics and demographics and politics. The U.S. has quite the number of vassal states across the whole globe.

If you want Ukraine to get its land back, its military needs to start winning. That's an incredibly simple point to understand. I made this point many pages ago, blowing up a boat in the Black Sea is good for creating images on Twitter that people share but does not do anything to help Ukraine win unless you can demonstrate how blowing up that boat feeds into the weakening of Russian front line forces, allowing the Ukrainian forces to then break through them and take back their territory that Russia has taken since the invasion started 2 years ago. Blowing up boats in the Black Sea in the context of the overall conflict is an al-Qaeda-esque strategy of blowing up a Humvee with 3 soldiers in it via roadside bomb of it's a shiny video you can create but it does not change facts on the ground of who is in control. What are the Ukrainians doing to change facts on the ground? Where's the draft if they actually want to win this war? I just think Zelenskyy has privately conceded all the territory to Russia they've already lost and we'll all find out that's the truth in a New York Times op-ed written 9 years from now probably. I'm just trying to figure out Zelenskyy's end game - the real end game, not what he says publicly.

The focus on F-16s is this giant glaring example to me. That you can't flip a switch and instantly have trained Ukrainians that are all-stars flying F-16s as some idiots on this thread said early on is the mother of all eyerolls, no sh*t you weren't. F-16s is a post-war air defense mechanism vs. Russia, it's not an in-war use due to the long lead time of getting F-16s and training Ukrainian pilots and getting parts and training Ukrainian maintenance crews how to properly upkeep them unless you want to pay out the nose for private defense contractor workers to live in Ukraine on an airbase for a long period of time that's probably under fire semi-regularly. People that are not military have no f#ck*ng clue how logistically complicated military personnel and equipment are. It's why everything in Europe regarding their military the past few decades slowly rotting away has had smart NATO military watchers pulling their hair out.

[CumbrianLefty]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

That's called right of conquest.

Human history has existed for a very long time. It's foolish and arrogant of people to think we're so enlightened that the last 80 years have changed how the last few thousand years operated. And right of conquest still exists in the modern world, it's just not done with bullets typically, it's done via economics and demographics and politics. The U.S. has quite the number of vassal states across the whole globe.

But that is still a highly significant difference, isn't it.

Your argument seems to be the "realist" one that people are all still basically and unalterably primitive savages, and any attempts to alter this are ultimately doomed to failure.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

That's called right of conquest.

Human history has existed for a very long time. It's foolish and arrogant of people to think we're so enlightened that the last 80 years have changed how the last few thousand years operated. And right of conquest still exists in the modern world, it's just not done with bullets typically, it's done via economics and demographics and politics. The U.S. has quite the number of vassal states across the whole globe.

If you want Ukraine to get its land back, its military needs to start winning. That's an incredibly simple point to understand. I made this point many pages ago, blowing up a boat in the Black Sea is good for creating images on Twitter that people share but does not do anything to help Ukraine win unless you can demonstrate how blowing up that boat feeds into the weakening of Russian front line forces, allowing the Ukrainian forces to then break through them and take back their territory that Russia has taken since the invasion started 2 years ago. Blowing up boats in the Black Sea in the context of the overall conflict is an al-Qaeda-esque strategy of blowing up a Humvee with 3 soldiers in it via roadside bomb of it's a shiny video you can create but it does not change facts on the ground of who is in control. What are the Ukrainians doing to change facts on the ground? Where's the draft if they actually want to win this war? I just think Zelenskyy has privately conceded all the territory to Russia they've already lost and we'll all find out that's the truth in a New York Times op-ed written 9 years from now probably. I'm just trying to figure out Zelenskyy's end game - the real end game, not what he says publicly.

The focus on F-16s is this giant glaring example to me. That you can't flip a switch and instantly have trained Ukrainians that are all-stars flying F-16s as some idiots on this thread said early on is the mother of all eyerolls, no sh*t you weren't. F-16s is a post-war air defense mechanism vs. Russia, it's not an in-war use due to the long lead time of getting F-16s and training Ukrainian pilots and getting parts and training Ukrainian maintenance crews how to properly upkeep them unless you want to pay out the nose for private defense contractor workers to live in Ukraine on an airbase for a long period of time that's probably under fire semi-regularly. People that are not military have no f#ck*ng clue how logistically complicated military personnel and equipment are. It's why everything in Europe regarding their military the past few decades slowly rotting away has had smart NATO military watchers pulling their hair out.

Talk about “mother of all eyerolls” if Zelensky “privately conceded all the territory to Russia” he wouldn’t have had the fallout he did with Zaluzhnyi over mobilizations and counter attack ideas. There is literally nothing that could point to such a conclusion and most evidence both here in the west that we can easily access and more on the ground stuff in Ukraine point to the exact opposite.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

That's called right of conquest.

Human history has existed for a very long time. It's foolish and arrogant of people to think we're so enlightened that the last 80 years have changed how the last few thousand years operated. And right of conquest still exists in the modern world, it's just not done with bullets typically, it's done via economics and demographics and politics. The U.S. has quite the number of vassal states across the whole globe.

But that is still a highly significant difference, isn't it.

Your argument seems to be the "realist" one that people are all still basically and unalterably primitive savages, and any attempts to alter this are ultimately doomed to failure.

People are not primitive savages, but people will always be in conflict with one another, be it war, trade, resources, politics, philosophy, labor negotiations, or who gets to date the pretty blonde girl in school. Why do you argue with complete strangers on this message board other than you want to engage in a war of ideas?

There's a lot of Arnold Toynbee watching Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in your comment.