Russia - Ukraine Conflict 2022 (120 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
In general I have a more positive attitude towards a diplomatic solutions or parties who are willing to talk. I really disagree with opinions that this is a ‘cheap’ way to fight the Russians as it costs no NATO manpower, horrible rhetorics imo. Seen and heard it to much last years and I think it’s sickening
If we have to write a best case scenario down, everyone would write that Ukraine wins the war, joins NATO and the EU. A military victory though seems very hard, and the Russian economy did not crumble so far. As a general here recently said, Putin wasted half of his treasure so far on the war, but exports to India and China are higher than ever. So their economy might be more resilient than anticipated by the West. About 40% of Russian GDP goes to the war, and they need more or less 5 years to regroup and rebuild their resources in order to be ready for a next war.
So knowing all of that, what’s wrong and what’s right? It’s a hard question. Continuing to fight until one of the countries reaches the culminating point is a option, but will come at a heavy cost of life and might take years.
I think the most viable option would be Ukraine losing territory (the Donbas specifically, but don’t forget the south is occupied now), joins EU (whenever they meet the Kopenhagen agreements) and don’t join NATO, but get security agreements with NATO. Joining the alliance might be to difficult to pull it of from a diplomatic point of view.
Either way a peace deal without safety guarantees isn’t worth much.
There also should be high control and cooperation on the borders and with rebuilding police forces with Ukraine, because the aftermath of the war will mean that a lot of equipment will go on the black marked and corruption has been a problem for years there. Same problem might rise as happened with Yugoslavia
If we have to write a best case scenario down, everyone would write that Ukraine wins the war, joins NATO and the EU. A military victory though seems very hard, and the Russian economy did not crumble so far. As a general here recently said, Putin wasted half of his treasure so far on the war, but exports to India and China are higher than ever. So their economy might be more resilient than anticipated by the West. About 40% of Russian GDP goes to the war, and they need more or less 5 years to regroup and rebuild their resources in order to be ready for a next war.
So knowing all of that, what’s wrong and what’s right? It’s a hard question. Continuing to fight until one of the countries reaches the culminating point is a option, but will come at a heavy cost of life and might take years.
I think the most viable option would be Ukraine losing territory (the Donbas specifically, but don’t forget the south is occupied now), joins EU (whenever they meet the Kopenhagen agreements) and don’t join NATO, but get security agreements with NATO. Joining the alliance might be to difficult to pull it of from a diplomatic point of view.
Either way a peace deal without safety guarantees isn’t worth much.
There also should be high control and cooperation on the borders and with rebuilding police forces with Ukraine, because the aftermath of the war will mean that a lot of equipment will go on the black marked and corruption has been a problem for years there. Same problem might rise as happened with Yugoslavia
that's the russian solution though. 100% unacceptable, that would only encourage them to continue to be the aggressors towards either ukraine or other countries (moldova next)
why would anyone trust russia though. their word is worthless, they are unreliable, that's their nature
btw your solution wouldn't even hold the russians accountable. so according to you, you can attack a sovereign country and gain new territory in return. SAD.
why would anyone trust russia though. their word is worthless, they are unreliable, that's their nature
btw your solution wouldn't even hold the russians accountable. so according to you, you can attack a sovereign country and gain new territory in return. SAD.
the same i wrote probably a 1000 times: russian troops fucks back to where they came from, geneva trial for putin, ukraine joins nato. the eu membership is irrelevant, it offers no military protection
let's not encourage aggressors by giving them new territories as rewards. that's a terribly weak message. that would only benefit the bullies of the world. russia has ZERO legal claim on those territories, period
let's not encourage aggressors by giving them new territories as rewards. that's a terribly weak message. that would only benefit the bullies of the world. russia has ZERO legal claim on those territories, period
You’re basically asking for a military victory: liberation of the Donbas, Crimea (both either partially or under full control of Russia for 10 years), liberation of the south, arresting Putin and convicting him at the ICC in The Hague, all of that while:
-being outnumbered in manpower, weaponry and ammunition;
-adapting the Western military doctrine (meaning we value life more than Russia, who go for mass);
-a changing political landscape around them, with the EU making a shift to the right and possibly the US aswel;
-unlike Russia being unable to call in foreign entities;
The question is how do you see that, how are they going to pull that off?
-being outnumbered in manpower, weaponry and ammunition;
-adapting the Western military doctrine (meaning we value life more than Russia, who go for mass);
-a changing political landscape around them, with the EU making a shift to the right and possibly the US aswel;
-unlike Russia being unable to call in foreign entities;
The question is how do you see that, how are they going to pull that off?
