Topic: Russia launches invasion of Ukraine (*) & use spoiler tags for anything graphic!

[The holly and the jillc]

Exactly this, I haven’t heard anything from him that makes me think he won’t sell out Ukraine as soon as he can, anything else is just wishful thinking. The only question is what he offers Ukraine or threatens Russia with that makes sure whatever concessions Ukraine is forced to make are full and final.

At that point Europe and Ukraine know they have a 4 year presidential term of relative peace in which to ensure the continents Eastern border is completely fortified such that a future Russian attack becomes either an impossibility or suicidal. That’s the only positive I can see.

Exactly, which is why Biden is trying to rush out the aid the US has at the moment to Ukraine before Trump takes over. They will never get the military aid otherwise and he will just work with the Russians and sell of Ukraine back to Putin.

[naka]

At that point Europe and Ukraine know they have a 4 year presidential term of relative peace in which to ensure the continents Eastern border is completely fortified such that a future Russian attack becomes either an impossibility or suicidal. That’s the only positive I can see.

the west has to start being realistic and spend monies on defence
only poland seems to be doing this

[baltic out here]

the west has to start being realistic and spend monies on defence
only poland seems to be doing this

Exactly right, hopefully Biden can send such an amount before his term's end, that it will hold the ork tide back for the near future. But from then on Europe really needs to pull together, but it's hard to see it happening, because politically the bigger countries are in the toilet... both France and Germany struggling with increasing support for the far right and of course Italy is already governed by the far right. Hungary, Turkey and Serbia all undermine Europe anyway.
I see it here constantly, Poland has been extremely helpful throughout the war, our little Baltic nations try what they can, but we're just too small, the estimate is we'd be run over on 36-48 hours. But it has been admirable to see different charities, events and organisations working from day 1. My mate even drove from Estonia all the way to Ukraine this summer to organise a charity festival.
But the big guns - the decisive action - that is missing and with the orange horror coming to office, I'm afraid it's just too late now. If Ukraine are left with what they have, then it's a matter of time they lose and of course my heart bleeds for them and anger seethes against the eastern horde doing what they always do, but that will soon turn to survival and thinking about oneself. Unfortunately the West and the western media does not comprehend reality - their goal is to reclaim all the land they occupied as soviets, they will not stop. Actually, if they achieve that I still don't think the West will do anything about it, cause they're not equipped and not united.
As for long term - that awful place to the east can never be cured. Only possibility is some sort of total collapse, on a scale we've not seen before. Don't see it happening unfortunately, they have their allies too.

[Schmidt]

The difficulty is that a lot of the money set aside by the US for Ukraine support has been spent on contracts for ammo and equipment that's still being built/refurbished, so most of that money is already gone but the resulting equipment won't be available until Trump is in, which he could then block from actually being sent (probably not legally but then when the fuck has that ever mattered to him).

[Lusty]

Agree and it's easy to say for the Ukrainians to fight on and have their young men killed. But for how long. They aren't going to defeat Russia militarily.

Russia lose wars all the time.  Of course they can be defeated militarily. 

I would ask you the same question, what's your end game?  If there's a peace deal which allows Russia to annex the Donbas and formally annex Crimea, what happens then?  Putin goes back to Russia and behaves himself from now on?

[Indomitable_Carp]

Russia lose wars all the time.  Of course they can be defeated militarily. 

I would ask you the same question, what's your end game?  If there's a peace deal which allows Russia to annex the Donbas and formally annex Crimea, what happens then?  Putin goes back to Russia and behaves himself from now on?

It's a difficult one at this stage, because Ukrainians are fighting and dying for Europe and it's ideals. But Europe has not backed Ukraine sufficiently to keep up the fight against a vastly bigger neighbour. In other words, Ukrainians are dying in the many thousands for a Europe that can't even pull it's finger out to help it.

If Trump pulls the plug, Ukrainians are dying in a bloody stalemate that they have no hope of winning, because Europe doesn't have the capacity or willpower to help on the scale needed in the short or even medium term to break the stalemate. We could say "let Ukraine fire missiles into Russia", but it's too late for that to be any kind of gamechanger. If we'd said it a year ago, maybe. It is not even clear what good Biden releasing another $9 billion will be if Europe can't pick up the slack later?

With Trump in power, if Putin wins in Ukraine, I think he will most certainly be coming for Europe sooner or later. And then Europeans will be dying to protect themselves, rather than relying on Ukrainains to die for them. But from the perspective of Ukraine, why should they continue to die en masse in a losing cause for a continent that isn't even interested? I'm not going to sit here in safety wishing Ukrainains to keep up the fight for us.

Zelenskiy and Ukraine have some very painful choices to make now. They have done everything they possibly could within their power to win, and if we had backed them there is a good chance they would have done it. But they will be considering whether it is any longer worth it to throw tens of thousands more lives away to maintain a stalemate. And that is to our eternal shame, and sooner or later will be to our direct cost.

[Schmidt]

I don't think Russia could try attacking Europe regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, their tech has been proven to be decades behind western equivalents, their stockpiles have been decimated and their economy would take even more of a beating. Their alliance is largely with shitty weak countries too, China is probably the only threat and they're too heavily dependent on exports to do anything beyond attacking Taiwan.

The hope for Ukraine now is that their own production has ramped up to a significant enough degree that the only thing they require from the west is money and intel, both of which have been in decent supply.

[Indomitable_Carp]

I don't think Russia could try attacking Europe regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, their tech has been proven to be decades behind western equivalents, their stockpiles have been decimated and their economy would take even more of a beating. Their alliance is largely with shitty weak countries too, China is probably the only threat and they're too heavily dependent on exports to do anything beyond attacking Taiwan.

The hope for Ukraine now is that their own production has ramped up to a significant enough degree that the only thing they require from the west is money and intel, both of which have been in decent supply.

The problem is the Russian economy is now entirely geared towards a war footing. The war economy has thus far proven remarkably resilient.  If the Ukraine war stops, the war machine needs to keep turning, or Russia really will be facing economic collapse because war production is now it's main driver. In regards to China, if Trump puts up tarrifs, China will have even more incentive to help Russia's economy as a market for Chinese exports, as will other industrialised nations.

Second of all, what the war in UKraine has shown is that Europe does not have the capacity to produce enough war materials either. Once Europe expends all it's fancy and incredibly costly missiles and other materials, what then? Russia's war economy is now years ahead in regards to military production. There are also plenty of forms of costly assymetric warfare Russia can still engage in. If Trump carried through on his threats not to help Europe, Putin might fancy his chances at the Baltic States or something similar. He might think there'll never be a better opportunity.

It would also be a mistake to underestimate just how ideologically committed Putin is to Russian dominance over Europe. At this stage, nothing would surprise me. I'm no expert, but if you'd asked most people (majority of experts included) in 2020 if they thought we'd be where we are today, they would have said you're mad. If Europe still isn't prepared after 2008, 2014, 2016, and 2022, then it is a monumental and historic failure.

[Schmidt]

The problem is the Russian economy is now entirely geared towards a war footing. The war economy has thus far proven remarkably resilient.  If the Ukraine war stops, the war machine needs to keep turning, or Russia really will be facing economic collapse because war production is now it's main driver. In regards to China, if Trump puts up tarrifs, China will have even more incentive to help Russia's economy as a market for Chinese exports, as will other industrialised nations.

Second of all, what the war in UKraine has shown is that Europe does not have the capacity to produce enough war materials either. Once Europe expends all it's fancy and incredibly costly missiles and other materials, what then? Russia's war economy is now years ahead in regards to military production. There are also plenty of forms of costly assymetric warfare Russia can still engage in. If Trump carried through on his threats not to help Europe, Putin might fancy his chances at the Baltic States or something similar. He might think there'll never be a better opportunity.

It would also be a mistake to underestimate just how ideologically committed Putin is to Russian dominance over Europe. At this stage, nothing would surprise me. I'm no expert, but if you'd asked most people (majority of experts included) in 2020 if they thought we'd be where we are today, they would have said you're mad. If Europe still isn't prepared after 2008, 2014, 2016, and 2022, then it is a monumental and historic failure.

The war economy is resilient but not a long term option, they would have to spend years taking Ukraine, then rebuilding their military, all on a war footing, before even attempting to invade elsewhere. Russia would also need to expend a lot of resources to occupy Ukraine.

Europe hasn't really depleted itself at all while supporting Ukraine, and one of the challenges with ramping up production has been that Ukraine are fighting a war that NATO never planned to fight. It's all been trenches and artillery fire, while Europe is geared towards aerial dominance. If war did break out Russia would struggle to even get their artillery or planes near a NATO country. Europe also hasn't really tried to increase capacity much, it's all been done on a military budget that was already too low in most countries.

[Lusty]

I don't think Russia could try attacking Europe regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, their tech has been proven to be decades behind western equivalents, their stockpiles have been decimated and their economy would take even more of a beating. Their alliance is largely with shitty weak countries too, China is probably the only threat and they're too heavily dependent on exports to do anything beyond attacking Taiwan.

The hope for Ukraine now is that their own production has ramped up to a significant enough degree that the only thing they require from the west is money and intel, both of which have been in decent supply.

They most likely wouldn't launch a full assault into Europe, but they will definitely try to test Article 5 somehow.  Probably in the Baltics.

All the while continuing to mess with Moldova, Georgia, and ongoing military activity in Syria and half a dozen African countries.  There's also been meddling in the Balkans, if you want a direct precedent for a European war.

[DiggerJohn]

They most likely wouldn't launch a full assault into Europe, but they will definitely try to test Article 5 somehow.  Probably in the Baltics.

All the while continuing to mess with Moldova, Georgia, and ongoing military activity in Syria and half a dozen African countries.  There's also been meddling in the Balkans, if you want a direct precedent for a European war.

I personally dont think Putin would try another country after Ukraine. He thought it would be a cake walk. Over 2 years later he still hasn't taken all of Donets

[Indomitable_Carp]

The war economy is resilient but not a long term option, they would have to spend years taking Ukraine, then rebuilding their military, all on a war footing, before even attempting to invade elsewhere. Russia would also need to expend a lot of resources to occupy Ukraine.

Europe hasn't really depleted itself at all while supporting Ukraine, and one of the challenges with ramping up production has been that Ukraine are fighting a war that NATO never planned to fight. It's all been trenches and artillery fire, while Europe is geared towards aerial dominance. If war did break out Russia would struggle to even get their artillery or planes near a NATO country. Europe also hasn't really tried to increase capacity much, it's all been done on a military budget that was already too low in most countries.

You might be right. In fact, I sincerely hope you're right. But NATO is also dependent on the USA for most of it's logistical capabilities and the majority of it's airpower. If Trump says no, what then?

And if Putin went for the Baltics, NATO has already shown it is too scared to strike inside Russia for fear of nuclear threats. It won't even let Ukraine strike inside Russia. I could see multiple scenarios in which Putin funnels weaponary and men into "Pro-Russia" groups in the Baltics to probe NATO's resolve.

If things heated up it could threaten nuclear retaliation for any attacks that cross the Russian border on supply lines. Which nuclear powers are going to risk nuclear war for little old Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania? Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I wouldn't put it past Putin to try and find out. If NATO backs down, sweep in and take them. If NATO steps up, pull back - he won't have lost anything. Why not?

Long story short, if I was sitting on Russia's border right now I'd be shitting myself. I'm not saying it will definitely happen. It might not even be likely to happen. But Europe need's to be prepared for the possibility.

[The holly and the jillc]

Shame on Putin and his thugs. Dreadful story about a female journalist from Ukraine who has died in the Russian detention facility dubbed "hell on earth" and they are refusing to release her body to her family, so they can bury her. Fifty days this has gone on for, doubtless to hide the evidence.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-journalist-victoria-roshchyna-russia-b2642649.html

It's worth pointing out that Victoria is the ninth female journalist killed covering the war.

https://t.co/PpoFhajg8Z

[PaulF]

My gut feel is to fully back Ukraine, but I don't see how that ends the war unless they take Moscow, or something else equally implausible.

[Schmidt]

You might be right. In fact, I sincerely hope you're right. But NATO is also dependent on the USA for most of it's logistical capabilities and the majority of it's airpower. If Trump says no, what then?

And if Putin went for the Baltics, NATO has already shown it is too scared to strike inside Russia for fear of nuclear threats. It won't even let Ukraine strike inside Russia. I could see multiple scenarios in which Putin funnels weaponary and men into "Pro-Russia" groups in the Baltics to probe NATO's resolve.

If things heated up it could threaten nuclear retaliation for any attacks that cross the Russian border on supply lines. Which nuclear powers are going to risk nuclear war for little old Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania? Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I wouldn't put it past Putin to try and find out. If NATO backs down, sweep in and take them. If NATO steps up, pull back - he won't have lost anything. Why not?

Long story short, if I was sitting on Russia's border right now I'd be shitting myself. I'm not saying it will definitely happen. It might not even be likely to happen. But Europe need's to be prepared for the possibility.

I'd be surprised if Trump took away American jobs by cancelling production of military tech for Europe, becoming an unreliable supplier would destroy their defence industry.

I agree Europe needs to get its shit together however and look to ramp production up faster. Hopefully conversations are happening with South Korea too as it would be great if their tech could be purchased and given to Ukraine, though I don't see it happening as most nations seem to prefer only supplying equipment produced at home.

My gut feel is to fully back Ukraine, but I don't see how that ends the war unless they take Moscow, or something else equally implausible.

Russia are predicted to start running out of tanks/APC's in 2025. They're already firing significantly fewer missiles due to shortages and the quality of their artillery appears to be declining significantly, which led to a sharp uptick in losses earlier in the year that has continued since. One of the challenges with a war of attrition is it can look like nothing is changing for years, then quite suddenly the tide starts to turn.

[farawayred]

I watch a bunch of interviews with political and military analysis (granted, I don't know if they are the top experts in the field). The concensus is that for the war to end there are several conditions, two of which are (1) that Ukraine must agree to cede territory, and (2) that Russia must guarantee future non-aggression. I can see that Ukraine might agree to the first, maybe give Crimea and get back the 1992 borders, but how can anyone think that (2) is executable?! Wasn't non-aggression a condition on Russia for Ukraine to give up its Soviet nukes?

I don't know where that war is headed... And I don't know what Trump would do either. Many people think they do, but a lot of that is BS fed by the media who don't know anything when it comes to Trump (as the Iowa poll showed). He was elected predominantly for one main reason - to fix the economy. That brought Republicans in the Senate and will bring them to power in the House too. To fix the economy, Trump will need to stop or greatly reduce the funding for the war, so he needs a money solution not a political one. At the same time, he needs to deal with the "little rocket man", who is part of the war now. It is in Trump's interest that both sides lose...

[A scaleXtric DraeX Xmas]

20% interest rates are crippling them



Feels like Ukraine needs to hold out a little bit longer, start strikes in Russia and then peace.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

You might be right. In fact, I sincerely hope you're right. But NATO is also dependent on the USA for most of it's logistical capabilities and the majority of it's airpower. If Trump says no, what then?

And if Putin went for the Baltics, NATO has already shown it is too scared to strike inside Russia for fear of nuclear threats. It won't even let Ukraine strike inside Russia. I could see multiple scenarios in which Putin funnels weaponary and men into "Pro-Russia" groups in the Baltics to probe NATO's resolve.

If things heated up it could threaten nuclear retaliation for any attacks that cross the Russian border on supply lines. Which nuclear powers are going to risk nuclear war for little old Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania? Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I wouldn't put it past Putin to try and find out. If NATO backs down, sweep in and take them. If NATO steps up, pull back - he won't have lost anything. Why not?

Long story short, if I was sitting on Russia's border right now I'd be shitting myself. I'm not saying it will definitely happen. It might not even be likely to happen. But Europe need's to be prepared for the possibility.

Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia are NATO. An attack on them constitutes an attack on the rest of NATO countries including the nuclear powers UK, France and USA. Their first response need not be a diplomatic one. Whilst there is no explicit statement that a NATO armed response would include the use of nuclear weapons - this is also not something that is ruled out.

Essentially the current situation - where Putin dares the West to call his bluff that he won't use nuclear weapons - would be reversed. If Putin was to invade one of those Baltic countries (or indeed Finland or Poland) he would be gambling on NATO not immediately nuking Moscow in response.

With Trump coming to power I would expect a peace deal pretty soon with Russia keeping what they already have and Putin declaring it a victory to the Russian public. Maybe the Russians will try one more big offensive campaign when the weather improves next year to try and take more territory before they come to the negotiating table.   

[PaulF]

But would Ukraine agree to this without Nato membership.
and would Putin agree to it with Nato membership.

Is there any sort of 'half' membership?

[west_london_red]

But would Ukraine agree to this without Nato membership.
and would Putin agree to it with Nato membership.

Is there any sort of 'half' membership?

Thats where I think the 4 years come into it, use that time wisely, send them the F16, SAMs etc that can be spared etc, help them develop their own weapons manufacturing, mine the boarder… whatever it takes to make sure Putin knows not to even try and fuck about

[Schmidt]

The German chancellor just fired their finance minister, allegedly over his refusal to increase spending on Ukraine. Hopefully that's a sign that the penny has dropped somewhere at least.

[baltic out here]

I don't know where that war is headed... And I don't know what Trump would do either. Many people think they do, but a lot of that is BS fed by the media who don't know anything when it comes to Trump (as the Iowa poll showed).

If people know their history, it's easy to see where the war is headed - russians will take Ukraine in its entirety (and absolutely demolish it, torture and kill and rape its people). Then they go for the rest of us. It may be one month, it may be one year, it may be 5 or more years, but that's how it will go unless the civilized western countries are unified against this threat. It's very simple, really. (for more than a decade russian school books for primary schools have had the Baltic states under russia's borders btw)

Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia are NATO. An attack on them constitutes an attack on the rest of NATO countries including the nuclear powers UK, France and USA. Their first response need not be a diplomatic one. Whilst there is no explicit statement that a NATO armed response would include the use of nuclear weapons - this is also not something that is ruled out.

Essentially the current situation - where Putin dares the West to call his bluff that he won't use nuclear weapons - would be reversed. If Putin was to invade one of those Baltic countries (or indeed Finland or Poland) he would be gambling on NATO not immediately nuking Moscow in response.

There is no way nukes would be used, NATO wouldn't even threaten to use them, especially for such small countries as ours, only a few million people - it's not worth the risk for UK/France etc. What I fear is, once the orks cross our borders, we'll be taken in a matter of 2, maybe 3 days max. That is such a small amount of time, that especially with the US not interested, even NATO won't be able to react. Once the Baltics have been taken, NATO will not be in a position to re-take them easily, it would need an enormous amount of resources and a massive air-sea-land campaign and risk an all-out west v east war. There will more likely be more 'diplomacy' attempted - i.e. talking to a brick wall and then.. how about more sanctions. Such small countries aren't worth risking all-out war and nukes. Maybe if Poland was attacked, it would be a different story, and Poland is very well prepared, with quite a bit of higher-tech military ready to go anytime.

[thaddeus]

The German chancellor just fired their finance minister, allegedly over his refusal to increase spending on Ukraine. Hopefully that's a sign that the penny has dropped somewhere at least.

About time (not aimed at Germany as they've been better than most in Europe).  Russia is apparently diverting over 40% of its economy into the war and yet in Europe we have hand wringing about 2%.

[Red-Soldier]

About time (not aimed at Germany as they've been better than most in Europe).  Russia is apparently diverting over 40% of its economy into the war and yet in Europe we have hand wringing about 2%.

When it comes to things like wars, autocracy has an advantage, over a democracy.

[A scaleXtric DraeX Xmas]

The German chancellor just fired their finance minister, allegedly over his refusal to increase spending on Ukraine. Hopefully that's a sign that the penny has dropped somewhere at least.

Unfortunately the context of this was the finance minister wanted Sholz to allow the transfer for Taurus and he refused. Another spineless c*nt.

[Indomitable_Carp]

Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia are NATO. An attack on them constitutes an attack on the rest of NATO countries including the nuclear powers UK, France and USA. Their first response need not be a diplomatic one. Whilst there is no explicit statement that a NATO armed response would include the use of nuclear weapons - this is also not something that is ruled out.

Essentially the current situation - where Putin dares the West to call his bluff that he won't use nuclear weapons - would be reversed. If Putin was to invade one of those Baltic countries (or indeed Finland or Poland) he would be gambling on NATO not immediately nuking Moscow in response.

With Trump coming to power I would expect a peace deal pretty soon with Russia keeping what they already have and Putin declaring it a victory to the Russian public. Maybe the Russians will try one more big offensive campaign when the weather improves next year to try and take more territory before they come to the negotiating table.   

To answer the first part of your post, yes, it constitutes an attack on all NATO countries in theory. But then we have a US President who has openly spoken about the possibility of not coming to NATO's aid. That's why I wouldn't put it past Putin to give a few pokes to try and find out whether NATO is as good as its word.

To the second part, I hope you're right, and that Russia really is wounded and chastened enough that Putin is happy to leave it at claiming a victory in Ukraine.

[DiggerJohn]

Russia lose wars all the time.  Of course they can be defeated militarily. 

I would ask you the same question, what's your end game?  If there's a peace deal which allows Russia to annex the Donbas and formally annex Crimea, what happens then?  Putin goes back to Russia and behaves himself from now on?

I don't see Ukraine defeating Russia no. I don't have a solution either. My original question was if it is worth it for Ukrainians to continue fighting and dying. It's certainly suits Western Europeans because they aren't having to do anything meanful to feel safer

[west_london_red]

To answer the first part of your post, yes, it constitutes an attack on all NATO countries in theory. But then we have a US President who has openly spoken about the possibility of not coming to NATO's aid. That's why I wouldn't put it past Putin to give a few pokes to try and find out whether NATO is as good as its word.

To the second part, I hope you're right, and that Russia really is wounded and chastened enough that Putin is happy to leave it at claiming a victory in Ukraine.

Only question there is if Russia does attack the Baltic countries does Europe need the US to defend itself? I’d say based on recent and current performance of Russian forces that the military of the UK, Germany, France, Poland, the Scandinavians etc should be enough to repel a Russian attack considering what the Ukrainians managed to achieve with 30 year old weapons.

[The holly and the jillc]

I don't see Ukraine defeating Russia no. I don't have a solution either. My original question was if it is worth it for Ukrainians to continue fighting and dying. It's certainly suits Western Europeans because they aren't having to do anything meanful to feel safer

They are fighting on because they want to fight on. They want to be able to choose their own fate, as an independent country away from Russia.  There has always been an independent spirit in Ukraine. It's the Russians who have been throwing their weapons down and happily surrendering.

[DiggerJohn]

They are fighting on because they want to fight on. They want to be able to choose their own fate, as an independent country away from Russia.  There has always been an independent spirit in Ukraine. It's the Russians who have been throwing their weapons down and happily surrendering.

So Russians have been throwing their weapons down and happily surrendering for 2 and a half years? How many POWs are there.where are you sources coming from ?

[The holly and the jillc]

So Russians have been throwing their weapons down and happily surrendering for 2 and a half years? How many POWs are there.where are you sources coming from ?

The young conscripts have and there has been plenty of publicity about this on a number of occasions.There have been no reports of soldiers from Ukraine doing it.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

I think the only way Ukraine negotiate willingly to land being succeeded is if there is a guarantee of protection of their independence (and not a non-aggression pact as what does that mean Russia will just break it - it means less than nothing to a tyrant). Some status of them either being a part of NATO or NATO protected.

Otherwise they will go to the negotiating table after being screwed over by the US and forced into it, or will keep fighting.

It isn't the idea of Ukraine fighting to protect Europe, they are fighting to protect their own sovereignty

[DiggerJohn]

But we don't know the numbers involved. Russia has Ukrainian POWs too. So it's very simplistic to say the Ukrainians are the brave ones and the Russians are surrendering have no discipline. But yet the conflict continues. Personally I don't see Putin agreeing a negotiate peace where we gives up Donets or Crimea. His standing with Russians as their strongman will collapse. His legacy destroyed

[thaddeus]

But we don't know the numbers involved. Russia has Ukrainian POWs too. So it's very simplistic to say the Ukrainians are the brave ones and the Russians are surrendering have no discipline. But yet the conflict continues. Personally I don't see Putin agreeing a negotiate peace where we gives up Donets or Crimea. His standing with Russians as their strongman will collapse. His legacy destroyed

In grim terms the best outcome may be that Trump and Putin have red lines that neither will cross and that forces an escalation from the US to twist Putin's arm.  I think Trump doesn't see Putin as being the bad guy in such black and white terms but I don't think he'll want to be seen to be a walkover either.  I know there's all the rumours about kompromat but Trump is such a brazen bell-end that I struggle to see what Russia could have on him that he'd be so scared of having leaked out.

Does anyone know Trump/GOP's views on Taiwan?  Surely China are watching closely to see whether the US is now open to acts of aggression to claim land and then agree peace deals where they retain said land.

[DiggerJohn]

I would love an end to the conflict but I don't see a scenario where the Ukrainians get a deal that they are happy with. I don't see Russia weakened enough where they will agree to a deal where territory they have taken they will surrender back. So the conflict goes on and more young men die on both sides it's very sad.

[AndyInVA]

I think the only way Ukraine negotiate willingly to land being succeeded is if there is a guarantee of protection of their independence (and not a non-aggression pact as what does that mean Russia will just break it - it means less than nothing to a tyrant). Some status of them either being a part of NATO or NATO protected.

I can't see NATO agreeing to be the guarantor of a non aggression agreement but can see the US getting very involved. EG The US can start training Ukrainian troops on a lkarger scale and will offer the latest tech in long range missiles and intelligence support.
Such a threat of greater resistrance from the Ukrainians may be enough to see off Putins land grab desires. Gifiting him 1/4 of Ukraine may be enough to see hi happy for 10-15 years which bring hm to the end of his reign.

[jepovic]

I would love an end to the conflict but I don't see a scenario where the Ukrainians get a deal that they are happy with. I don't see Russia weakened enough where they will agree to a deal where territory they have taken they will surrender back. So the conflict goes on and more young men die on both sides it's very sad.

Agree. Even if Ukraine would concede territory for peace, they need security gurantees and western soldiers on the ground to trust the peace. Otherwise Putin will just start the war again in 2 years.

Putin will never accept that. He thinks he's winning, and that without US support he will be able to just steam roll Ukraine. I dont think so personally. US support is super important, but Ukraine now has a huge own weapon production, plus the support from Europe which is ramping up. At the same time Russia's stocks of Soviet equipment are depleting.

Also, Ukraine has been holding back on the attack on oil infrastructure, in order to not make the oil prices soar which could hurt Harris. They could be a lot more agressive with those attacks, for instance start sinking russian tankers in the baltic sea

This is a great video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOwjmKMmkV4

[Stockholm Syndrome]

I can't see NATO agreeing to be the guarantor of a non aggression agreement but can see the US getting very involved. EG The US can start training Ukrainian troops on a lkarger scale and will offer the latest tech in long range missiles and intelligence support.
Such a threat of greater resistrance from the Ukrainians may be enough to see off Putins land grab desires. Gifiting him 1/4 of Ukraine may be enough to see hi happy for 10-15 years which bring hm to the end of his reign.

Is there any way to have Ukraine not join NATO and not have NATO troops on the ground, but say "Crossing of this line into Ukraine is considered tantamount to an attack on NATO"

So Putin worrying about NATO next to Russia (which was never a concern he just wanted his empire back) is not a factor in the public PR battle

Meanwhile the weather arms Ukraine better to protect against Russia if needed, but not officially NATO

[The holly and the jillc]

Whenever countries are having to deal with Putin you have to take on board that the man is pathological liar. Any "agreement" will be ripped up the moment he feels strong enough to re-engage in some aggression. That is why I feel Ukraine will feel compelled to fight on rather than accept any negotiated agreement, as basically Putin cannot be trusted to keep his word. There is a fascinating article by Bob Woodward in the Time magazine about past American governments attempting to work with Putin. Having left Russia, they then hear about Russian troop movements moving towards Georgia. At the time Putin was the main KGB commander and he would assure them, there was nothing to worry about. As they turned the plane around to leave they then found out there was indeed regiments of troops headed for Georgia. How can any agreement be worth the paper it's written on with this man, he has no honesty. 

[DiggerJohn]

Thanks for the discussion it's nice to listen to the different opinions without insulting each other. I will leave it for now maybe comeback if there are changes. Not sure what effect Trump as president will have on it.