Ukraine

[sixwings]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

https://archive.li/ZRKZu

https://x.com/maxseddon/status/1890767624457351408

US administration messaging was all over the map this week. Vance and Hegseth said the US wouldn't send troops in a post-war deal, but in another forum Vance said it was still on the table. The US's negotiating team doesn't seem to be speaking with a unified voice either. Witkoff and Kellogg aren't exactly at odds, but depending on the day it's hard to tell who is leading the effort. In one speech they expect Europe to step up and do everything, but in the next they don't actually want them to be part of negotiations - just to accept whatever deal Trump, Putin, and Zelensky come up with.

Hegseth even mentioned that Ukraine could get nukes. It's total chaos led by a bunch of complete morons in the US. This kind of chaos makes me very skeptical that any kind of peace deal will be reached.

[BicycleB]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

https://archive.li/ZRKZu

https://x.com/maxseddon/status/1890767624457351408

US administration messaging was all over the map this week. Vance and Hegseth said the US wouldn't send troops in a post-war deal, but in another forum Vance said it was still on the table. The US's negotiating team doesn't seem to be speaking with a unified voice either. Witkoff and Kellogg aren't exactly at odds, but depending on the day it's hard to tell who is leading the effort. In one speech they expect Europe to step up and do everything, but in the next they don't actually want them to be part of negotiations - just to accept whatever deal Trump, Putin, and Zelensky come up with.

Hegseth even mentioned that Ukraine could get nukes. It's total chaos led by a bunch of complete morons in the US. This kind of chaos makes me very skeptical that any kind of peace deal will be reached.

Sadly, I agree.

[BNgarden]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

Given the untrustworthiness of US reps and government now, I don't know why any European leader / country would share real plans with them?

[GuitarStv]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

https://archive.li/ZRKZu

https://x.com/maxseddon/status/1890767624457351408

US administration messaging was all over the map this week. Vance and Hegseth said the US wouldn't send troops in a post-war deal, but in another forum Vance said it was still on the table. The US's negotiating team doesn't seem to be speaking with a unified voice either. Witkoff and Kellogg aren't exactly at odds, but depending on the day it's hard to tell who is leading the effort. In one speech they expect Europe to step up and do everything, but in the next they don't actually want them to be part of negotiations - just to accept whatever deal Trump, Putin, and Zelensky come up with.

I got the impression that Zelensky's participation was largely unnecessary and unwelcome for the deal Trump was interested in.

[Travis]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

https://archive.li/ZRKZu

https://x.com/maxseddon/status/1890767624457351408

US administration messaging was all over the map this week. Vance and Hegseth said the US wouldn't send troops in a post-war deal, but in another forum Vance said it was still on the table. The US's negotiating team doesn't seem to be speaking with a unified voice either. Witkoff and Kellogg aren't exactly at odds, but depending on the day it's hard to tell who is leading the effort. In one speech they expect Europe to step up and do everything, but in the next they don't actually want them to be part of negotiations - just to accept whatever deal Trump, Putin, and Zelensky come up with.

I got the impression that Zelensky's participation was largely unnecessary and unwelcome for the deal Trump was interested in.

Part of Trump's "genius" is that right now everybody thinks they're going to get screwed.

[YttriumNitrate]

I got the impression that Zelensky's participation was largely unnecessary and unwelcome for the deal Trump was interested in.

The similarities to the Korean war certainly are interesting here. In both cases it looks like the US is going to sign a deal with a major Asian power to freeze the front lines and end the fighting without the agreement of the country that was invaded.

[Travis]

In-depth analysis on Russian casualties

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6-espHVSE

[bacchi]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

https://archive.li/ZRKZu

https://x.com/maxseddon/status/1890767624457351408

US administration messaging was all over the map this week. Vance and Hegseth said the US wouldn't send troops in a post-war deal, but in another forum Vance said it was still on the table. The US's negotiating team doesn't seem to be speaking with a unified voice either. Witkoff and Kellogg aren't exactly at odds, but depending on the day it's hard to tell who is leading the effort. In one speech they expect Europe to step up and do everything, but in the next they don't actually want them to be part of negotiations - just to accept whatever deal Trump, Putin, and Zelensky come up with.

Hegseth even mentioned that Ukraine could get nukes. It's total chaos led by a bunch of complete morons in the US. This kind of chaos makes me very skeptical that any kind of peace deal will be reached.

Maybe Ukraine can hire some of our fired nuke weapon specialists.

[Travis]

Everything he just said is a complete lie.

https://fixupx.com/atrupar/status/1892356643729359279

https://fixupx.com/atrupar/status/1892357301366874567

https://fixupx.com/acyn/status/1892357310754033868

[Trudie]

Tomorrow I will go to an immigration attorney appointment with a Ukrainian couple we have sponsored to be in the United States. They are here legally as humanitarian parolees, an immigration status that can be revoked at anytime by Trump. He has already paused the programs. Some Afghan refugees, who already had flights booked, and legal passage to the US (because they helped our troops) had their flights cancelled the day before they were to leave for the US. My point is, there is no end to cruelty and human suffering.

The purpose of tomorrow's appointment was for them to get information about whether they might have a valid case for asylum. Even if they do, why would they want to stay here now in a country on the slippery slope to tyranny whose president is lying about the war.? So, what to do? I'm sure Trump would just prefer they self -deport and will do everything to make sure that happens. I'm not really sure if they have a legitimate plan B. They are both employed and just moved into an apartment one month ago. They are paying taxes. They are contributing to our economy.

I don't even know how to advise them.

[Travis]

Despite Trump going batshit crazy on Zelensky this week, the negotiating team isn't giving up on finding middle ground.

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-could-pursue-streamlined-initial-deal-ukraine-minerals-sources-say-2025-02-20/

[LennStar]

The funny thing is that all the minerals etc. (including the third(?) largest lithium source in Europe) is in the areas now under control of Russia.
So if Selensky is smart he will sell Trump the biggest sources and tell Trump all he needs to do is get them himself.

----

Ukraine is continuing counter attacks south of Prokovsk, severely endangering the encirclement movement of the Russians there. They didn't get a lot of territory but that they got one village and maybe another is already putting a lot of pressure on the exhausted and donkey-supplied troops there.

Now, I don't know if the donkey was there, probably not, but I don't think a donkey is such a bad thing. It can carry as much as a ground drone, doesn't need electricity and can be eaten if needed. So I am probably one of the few who doesn't laugh (much) about the second best army of the world employing donkeys for transport of supplies.

[LaineyAZ]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

https://archive.li/ZRKZu

https://x.com/maxseddon/status/1890767624457351408

US administration messaging was all over the map this week. Vance and Hegseth said the US wouldn't send troops in a post-war deal, but in another forum Vance said it was still on the table. The US's negotiating team doesn't seem to be speaking with a unified voice either. Witkoff and Kellogg aren't exactly at odds, but depending on the day it's hard to tell who is leading the effort. In one speech they expect Europe to step up and do everything, but in the next they don't actually want them to be part of negotiations - just to accept whatever deal Trump, Putin, and Zelensky come up with.

Hegseth even mentioned that Ukraine could get nukes. It's total chaos led by a bunch of complete morons in the US. This kind of chaos makes me very skeptical that any kind of peace deal will be reached.

Sadly, I agree.

Ironic that Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons 30 years ago.  It's sad to think that Russia would not have invaded them if Ukraine hadn't done that.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-gave-up-its-nuclear-weapons-now-it-s-asking-why/ar-AA1vkp83#:~:text=Thirty%20years%20ago%2C%20on%205%20December%201994%2C%20at,United%20States%2C%20the%20UK%2C%20France%2C%20China%20and%20Russia.

[GuitarStv]

US sends request for information to European leaders on what they'll contribute to post-war Ukrainian security.

https://archive.li/ZRKZu

https://x.com/maxseddon/status/1890767624457351408

US administration messaging was all over the map this week. Vance and Hegseth said the US wouldn't send troops in a post-war deal, but in another forum Vance said it was still on the table. The US's negotiating team doesn't seem to be speaking with a unified voice either. Witkoff and Kellogg aren't exactly at odds, but depending on the day it's hard to tell who is leading the effort. In one speech they expect Europe to step up and do everything, but in the next they don't actually want them to be part of negotiations - just to accept whatever deal Trump, Putin, and Zelensky come up with.

Hegseth even mentioned that Ukraine could get nukes. It's total chaos led by a bunch of complete morons in the US. This kind of chaos makes me very skeptical that any kind of peace deal will be reached.

Sadly, I agree.

Ironic that Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons 30 years ago.  It's sad to think that Russia would not have invaded them if Ukraine hadn't done that.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-gave-up-its-nuclear-weapons-now-it-s-asking-why/ar-AA1vkp83#:~:text=Thirty%20years%20ago%2C%20on%205%20December%201994%2C%20at,United%20States%2C%20the%20UK%2C%20France%2C%20China%20and%20Russia.

Yep.  Stark reminder to the rest of the world that they should never disarm.

[LennStar]

I heard that so often...

but why do you think it would have prevented Russia from invading? Atomic bombs are nearly useless on a battlefield that spans 1000km frontline. And Ukrainians nuking there territiory? Hm...

So they would nuke Moskau? Really? Would they do that? And even if they did - doy ou think that would stop Putin (who would probabl hide somewhere safe).

[GuitarStv]

I heard that so often...

but why do you think it would have prevented Russia from invading? Atomic bombs are nearly useless on a battlefield that spans 1000km frontline. And Ukrainians nuking there territiory? Hm...

So they would nuke Moskau? Really? Would they do that? And even if they did - doy ou think that would stop Putin (who would probabl hide somewhere safe).

Use isn't really the point.  No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded.  The threat of nuclear weapons has historically been enough deterrent to preclude the need to use them.  Would Russia have risked having Moscow nuked by invading a nuclear armed Ukraine?

[reeshau]

I heard that so often...

but why do you think it would have prevented Russia from invading? Atomic bombs are nearly useless on a battlefield that spans 1000km frontline. And Ukrainians nuking there territiory? Hm...

So they would nuke Moskau? Really? Would they do that? And even if they did - doy ou think that would stop Putin (who would probabl hide somewhere safe).

Use isn't really the point.  No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded.  The threat of nuclear weapons has historically been enough deterrent to preclude the need to use them.  Would Russia have risked having Moscow nuked by invading a nuclear armed Ukraine?

Indeed, Russia itself has rattled that saber to simply deter NATO from helping Ukraine.

[LennStar]

I heard that so often...

but why do you think it would have prevented Russia from invading? Atomic bombs are nearly useless on a battlefield that spans 1000km frontline. And Ukrainians nuking there territiory? Hm...

So they would nuke Moskau? Really? Would they do that? And even if they did - doy ou think that would stop Putin (who would probabl hide somewhere safe).

Use isn't really the point.  No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded.  The threat of nuclear weapons has historically been enough deterrent to preclude the need to use them.  Would Russia have risked having Moscow nuked by invading a nuclear armed Ukraine?

I think yes.

The argument that no nuclear country has ever been invadid is a bit on weak feet anyway, since all nuclear countries are either conventional military super powers themselves or members of NATO. Or Israel, which did get invaded though I think they didn't have nukes at that time? And I would exclude Israel from any statistic for it's very special position.
Oh, and Pakistan. Yeah, Pakistan has never been invaded on a big scale.

[reeshau]

I heard that so often...

but why do you think it would have prevented Russia from invading? Atomic bombs are nearly useless on a battlefield that spans 1000km frontline. And Ukrainians nuking there territiory? Hm...

So they would nuke Moskau? Really? Would they do that? And even if they did - doy ou think that would stop Putin (who would probabl hide somewhere safe).

Use isn't really the point.  No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded.  The threat of nuclear weapons has historically been enough deterrent to preclude the need to use them.  Would Russia have risked having Moscow nuked by invading a nuclear armed Ukraine?

I think yes.

The argument that no nuclear country has ever been invadid is a bit on weak feet anyway, since all nuclear countries are either conventional military super powers themselves or members of NATO. Or Israel, which did get invaded though I think they didn't have nukes at that time? And I would exclude Israel from any statistic for it's very special position.
Oh, and Pakistan. Yeah, Pakistan has never been invaded on a big scale.

North Korea?  Not very well armed (quantity over quality) but crazy enough to push the button.  I think Putin is steering Russia in this direction, or at least trying to seem that way.

[Gremlin]

Despite Trump going batshit crazy on Zelensky this week, the negotiating team isn't giving up on finding middle ground.

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-could-pursue-streamlined-initial-deal-ukraine-minerals-sources-say-2025-02-20/

Even Reuters is sanitising their language to appease.  This doesn't represent middle ground.  It's nothing more than a mafia-like shakedown.

[LaineyAZ]

Reminds me of that cartoon about political centrists:

Right-wing Person A:  Genocide!
Left-wing Person B:    No Genocide!
Centrist:                    Maybe a little genocide?

[LennStar]

Reminds me of that cartoon about political centrists:

Right-wing Person A:  Genocide!
Left-wing Person B:    No Genocide!
Centrist:                    Maybe a little genocide?

Yes. You have to listen to both sides and try to find a middle ground.

[LaineyAZ]

Reminds me of that cartoon about political centrists:

Right-wing Person A:  Genocide!
Left-wing Person B:    No Genocide!
Centrist:                    Maybe a little genocide?

Yes. You have to listen to both sides and try to find a middle ground.

Missing the /s here?  Not sure what the "sides" are in genocide?

[Radagast]

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-access-starlink-internet-services-over-minerals-say-2025-02-22/

Trump being Trump. Good job USA.

[big_owl]

The whole Kursk thing was really perplexing from the start.  I do not know if Ukraine was really delusional enough to think they were going to militarily make large inroads into russia or whether it was some misguided attempt to gain a bargaining chip.  It's basically turned into a lodestone around their necks though.  Ukraine can't abandon the area and cut their losses because it would be a major PR disaster for them.  And frankly I think the russians are in no hurry to kick them out.  Ukraine stuck having to commit resources to it and effectively opened a second front where russia has the advantage of defensive positioning just manning it with green troops or even NKs while they're able to continue making progress in the east knowing ukraine is having to divert precious resources to kursk.

You are on the wrong road here. Putting aside the political implications and military results of who diverted more troops: Russia is very eager to kick Ukraine out. That is why they called the NKs in. The constant meat waves are also proof.
And it is Ukraine who has the advantage of defense positions. Those positions didn't matter at the start because they were not (effectivly) manned. They often fell without fight. You could argue that Ukraine would have been in better shape to not push that long/far. You could also argue it's Russian villages that are getting destroyed, not Ukrainian ones.

if russia were actually concerned about it being a bargaining chip they would just dial back their attacks in the east a bit, move to defensive positioning in a couple areas, and divert serious resources to kursk to kick the Ukrainians out in short order.

Bargaining chip might have been the intention of Ukraine. And if Trump had dialed up support for Ukraine, who knows?
But it's clear now that Putin still sees himself on the road to success. If he just pushes on. That is what the Russians are doing. That is why they not stop their attacks, nowhere. And they have thrown in serious resources - they have thrown in everything they have, and literally more (ten thousand NK soldiers, millions of NK arti grenades, hundreds of NK long range missiles...)

I think I said it before: Currently Ukraine is losing the war. But Russia is not winning. In this attrition war the one wins who gives up first. Russia, because they run out of nearly everything in roughly a year, or Ukraine because they run out in nearly everything in roughly half a year if US stops help.

No, I believe you are completely on the wrong track here.  This thread is full of 100 pages of pontificating that Russia is going to collapse Any. Day. Now...yet here we are 3yrs later and it hasn't happened.  Posters have been wrong over and over again, it's comical. 

The Russians are continuing to make inroads into Kursk and are just several kilometers away from completing a pincer movement to cut off the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk.  Mark my words that this will be seen through the lens of hindsight as a significant blunder by the Ukrainian leadership.  The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations. 

[LennStar]

No, I believe you are completely on the wrong track here.  This thread is full of 100 pages of pontificating that Russia is going to collapse Any. Day. Now...yet here we are 3yrs later and it hasn't happened.  Posters have been wrong over and over again, it's comical.

No it's not, especially since a lot of posts here are from me. What there are a lot of posts is about the estimates that Russia will run out of heavy stuff in teh second half of 2025/beginning of 2026. Which, if you look at how they do attacks on golf cars and bikes, and supplies per donkey instead of using those heavy vehicles, seems to be still right.

The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

Why didn't they do it the 3? 4? times putin himself said that they will finally do this? Why were several Kurk military commanders kicked out? Why dud Putin need to send for North Korean soldiers after NK ammunition?

You are either a troll and/or bathed in and believing Russian propaganda.

[Radagast]

The whole Kursk thing was really perplexing from the start.  I do not know if Ukraine was really delusional enough to think they were going to militarily make large inroads into russia or whether it was some misguided attempt to gain a bargaining chip.  It's basically turned into a lodestone around their necks though.  Ukraine can't abandon the area and cut their losses because it would be a major PR disaster for them.  And frankly I think the russians are in no hurry to kick them out.  Ukraine stuck having to commit resources to it and effectively opened a second front where russia has the advantage of defensive positioning just manning it with green troops or even NKs while they're able to continue making progress in the east knowing ukraine is having to divert precious resources to kursk.

You are on the wrong road here. Putting aside the political implications and military results of who diverted more troops: Russia is very eager to kick Ukraine out. That is why they called the NKs in. The constant meat waves are also proof.
And it is Ukraine who has the advantage of defense positions. Those positions didn't matter at the start because they were not (effectivly) manned. They often fell without fight. You could argue that Ukraine would have been in better shape to not push that long/far. You could also argue it's Russian villages that are getting destroyed, not Ukrainian ones.

if russia were actually concerned about it being a bargaining chip they would just dial back their attacks in the east a bit, move to defensive positioning in a couple areas, and divert serious resources to kursk to kick the Ukrainians out in short order.

Bargaining chip might have been the intention of Ukraine. And if Trump had dialed up support for Ukraine, who knows?
But it's clear now that Putin still sees himself on the road to success. If he just pushes on. That is what the Russians are doing. That is why they not stop their attacks, nowhere. And they have thrown in serious resources - they have thrown in everything they have, and literally more (ten thousand NK soldiers, millions of NK arti grenades, hundreds of NK long range missiles...)

I think I said it before: Currently Ukraine is losing the war. But Russia is not winning. In this attrition war the one wins who gives up first. Russia, because they run out of nearly everything in roughly a year, or Ukraine because they run out in nearly everything in roughly half a year if US stops help.

No, I believe you are completely on the wrong track here.  This thread is full of 100 pages of pontificating that Russia is going to collapse Any. Day. Now...yet here we are 3yrs later and it hasn't happened.  Posters have been wrong over and over again, it's comical. 

The Russians are continuing to make inroads into Kursk and are just several kilometers away from completing a pincer movement to cut off the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk.  Mark my words that this will be seen through the lens of hindsight as a significant blunder by the Ukrainian leadership.  The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

Russia did nearly collapse in 2023. It was hanging by a thread. The next opportunity for this is roughly 2026. Either way I'm a pragmatist. If Russia fails to collapse or become a completely different society, then by all indications they will continue conquering small European states indefinitely. Ukraine is 10x more defensible than Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia combined. Twice as defensible as any nation up to Germany, which is roughly equal. If only Russia's collapse will halt it's expansion, then the only acceptable policy is Russia's collapse. Also I see Russian information operations wreaking havoc on free societies. If we don't stop this soon we will all become like Russia, and that is not a good place to be.

[sixwings]

The whole Kursk thing was really perplexing from the start.  I do not know if Ukraine was really delusional enough to think they were going to militarily make large inroads into russia or whether it was some misguided attempt to gain a bargaining chip.  It's basically turned into a lodestone around their necks though.  Ukraine can't abandon the area and cut their losses because it would be a major PR disaster for them.  And frankly I think the russians are in no hurry to kick them out.  Ukraine stuck having to commit resources to it and effectively opened a second front where russia has the advantage of defensive positioning just manning it with green troops or even NKs while they're able to continue making progress in the east knowing ukraine is having to divert precious resources to kursk.

You are on the wrong road here. Putting aside the political implications and military results of who diverted more troops: Russia is very eager to kick Ukraine out. That is why they called the NKs in. The constant meat waves are also proof.
And it is Ukraine who has the advantage of defense positions. Those positions didn't matter at the start because they were not (effectivly) manned. They often fell without fight. You could argue that Ukraine would have been in better shape to not push that long/far. You could also argue it's Russian villages that are getting destroyed, not Ukrainian ones.

if russia were actually concerned about it being a bargaining chip they would just dial back their attacks in the east a bit, move to defensive positioning in a couple areas, and divert serious resources to kursk to kick the Ukrainians out in short order.

Bargaining chip might have been the intention of Ukraine. And if Trump had dialed up support for Ukraine, who knows?
But it's clear now that Putin still sees himself on the road to success. If he just pushes on. That is what the Russians are doing. That is why they not stop their attacks, nowhere. And they have thrown in serious resources - they have thrown in everything they have, and literally more (ten thousand NK soldiers, millions of NK arti grenades, hundreds of NK long range missiles...)

I think I said it before: Currently Ukraine is losing the war. But Russia is not winning. In this attrition war the one wins who gives up first. Russia, because they run out of nearly everything in roughly a year, or Ukraine because they run out in nearly everything in roughly half a year if US stops help.

No, I believe you are completely on the wrong track here.  This thread is full of 100 pages of pontificating that Russia is going to collapse Any. Day. Now...yet here we are 3yrs later and it hasn't happened.  Posters have been wrong over and over again, it's comical. 

The Russians are continuing to make inroads into Kursk and are just several kilometers away from completing a pincer movement to cut off the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk.  Mark my words that this will be seen through the lens of hindsight as a significant blunder by the Ukrainian leadership.  The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

Russia did nearly collapse in 2023. It was hanging by a thread. The next opportunity for this is roughly 2026. Either way I'm a pragmatist. If Russia fails to collapse or become a completely different society, then by all indications they will continue conquering small European states indefinitely. Ukraine is 10x more defensible than Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia combined. Twice as defensible as any nation up to Germany, which is roughly equal. If only Russia's collapse will halt it's expansion, then the only acceptable policy is Russia's collapse. Also I see Russian information operations wreaking havoc on free societies. If we don't stop this soon we will all become like Russia, and that is not a good place to be.

Russia doesn’t have the strength and supply lines to push into Europe. Their supply lines right now are literal donkeys, and they are at a stalemate against a country without an airforce. Non-US NATO isn’t weak, their Air Force alone is double the size of russias. The Russian supply chain would be destroyed within 24 hours. Russi is very much on the ropes right now, they have to get a ceasefire with Ukraine so they can try to rebuild over the next 5-10 years. The more likely scenario IMO is the EU rearms, Putin dies, and in the aftermath of his death, during the ensuing Russian power struggle, the EU invades and takes Russia and divides it up between them and China. Or there’s a ceasefire, with the EU rearming and supporting Ukraine with uneasy tensions along the border in a stalemate until Putin dies, and then who know what happens.

If anything Russia may try to project strength into Canadas north and the US and Russia will try to do an Ukraine style shakedown of Canada.

History should tell us that the last 80 years of Europe being a peaceful passive region is very abnormal and that they have no problem having large militaries, or being a global superpower, and that they tend to be rather aggressive with militaries. Europe is the third largest economy, potentially the largest when you add the UK back in and their other close allies such as Canada and Australia/NZ. They have a defense industry, and history has again shown us that Europe is very capable of arming themselves very quickly. The only thing holding Europe back right now is that they don’t have a unified army and each country kind of does what it wants, but a perceived existential threat from both the US and Russia could change that very quickly and we see a more united EU and the creation of a EU military.

Don’t ignore history and Europes ability to become a military superpower if they want.

[Radagast]

The whole Kursk thing was really perplexing from the start.  I do not know if Ukraine was really delusional enough to think they were going to militarily make large inroads into russia or whether it was some misguided attempt to gain a bargaining chip.  It's basically turned into a lodestone around their necks though.  Ukraine can't abandon the area and cut their losses because it would be a major PR disaster for them.  And frankly I think the russians are in no hurry to kick them out.  Ukraine stuck having to commit resources to it and effectively opened a second front where russia has the advantage of defensive positioning just manning it with green troops or even NKs while they're able to continue making progress in the east knowing ukraine is having to divert precious resources to kursk.

You are on the wrong road here. Putting aside the political implications and military results of who diverted more troops: Russia is very eager to kick Ukraine out. That is why they called the NKs in. The constant meat waves are also proof.
And it is Ukraine who has the advantage of defense positions. Those positions didn't matter at the start because they were not (effectivly) manned. They often fell without fight. You could argue that Ukraine would have been in better shape to not push that long/far. You could also argue it's Russian villages that are getting destroyed, not Ukrainian ones.

if russia were actually concerned about it being a bargaining chip they would just dial back their attacks in the east a bit, move to defensive positioning in a couple areas, and divert serious resources to kursk to kick the Ukrainians out in short order.

Bargaining chip might have been the intention of Ukraine. And if Trump had dialed up support for Ukraine, who knows?
But it's clear now that Putin still sees himself on the road to success. If he just pushes on. That is what the Russians are doing. That is why they not stop their attacks, nowhere. And they have thrown in serious resources - they have thrown in everything they have, and literally more (ten thousand NK soldiers, millions of NK arti grenades, hundreds of NK long range missiles...)

I think I said it before: Currently Ukraine is losing the war. But Russia is not winning. In this attrition war the one wins who gives up first. Russia, because they run out of nearly everything in roughly a year, or Ukraine because they run out in nearly everything in roughly half a year if US stops help.

No, I believe you are completely on the wrong track here.  This thread is full of 100 pages of pontificating that Russia is going to collapse Any. Day. Now...yet here we are 3yrs later and it hasn't happened.  Posters have been wrong over and over again, it's comical. 

The Russians are continuing to make inroads into Kursk and are just several kilometers away from completing a pincer movement to cut off the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk.  Mark my words that this will be seen through the lens of hindsight as a significant blunder by the Ukrainian leadership.  The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

Russia did nearly collapse in 2023. It was hanging by a thread. The next opportunity for this is roughly 2026. Either way I'm a pragmatist. If Russia fails to collapse or become a completely different society, then by all indications they will continue conquering small European states indefinitely. Ukraine is 10x more defensible than Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia combined. Twice as defensible as any nation up to Germany, which is roughly equal. If only Russia's collapse will halt it's expansion, then the only acceptable policy is Russia's collapse. Also I see Russian information operations wreaking havoc on free societies. If we don't stop this soon we will all become like Russia, and that is not a good place to be.

Russia doesn’t have the strength and supply lines to push into Europe. Their supply lines right now are literal donkeys, and they are at a stalemate against a country without an airforce. Non-US NATO isn’t weak, their Air Force alone is double the size of russias. The Russian supply chain would be destroyed within 24 hours. Russi is very much on the ropes right now, they have to get a ceasefire with Ukraine so they can try to rebuild over the next 5-10 years. The more likely scenario IMO is the EU rearms, Putin dies, and in the aftermath of his death, during the ensuing Russian power struggle, the EU invades and takes Russia and divides it up between them and China. Or there’s a ceasefire, with the EU rearming and supporting Ukraine with uneasy tensions along the border in a stalemate until Putin dies, and then who know what happens.

History should tell us that the last 80 years of Europe being a peaceful passive region is very abnormal and that they have no problem having large militaries, or being a global superpower, and that they tend to be rather aggressive with militaries. Europe is the third largest economy, potentially the largest when you add the UK back in and their other close allies such as Canada and Australia/NZ. They have a defense industry, and history has again shown us that Europe is very capable of arming themselves very quickly. The only thing holding Europe back right now is that they don’t have a unified army and each country kind of does what it wants, but a perceived existential threat from both the US and Russia could change that very quickly and we see a more united EU and the creation of a EU military.

Don’t ignore history and Europes ability to become a military superpower if they want.

While not ignoring history, Russia has invaded Finland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Georgia, China, Mongolia, all of the " 'Stans," Ukraine, Austria, Chezchia (SP), Poland, Germany and others in the past 100 years and with the exception of Germany (now greatly weakened) the only reason they weren't stopped was the US. The only reason they did not reclaim the whole Eastern Roman Empire is they were stopped by Britain in the 1800's. Together Russia's current neighbors can defeat it on their own. If Russia falls, Finland the Baltics and Poland would likely not be able to without a great deal of direct intervention. It doesn't take great supply routes to get across Estonia. So what you are saying is true and yet highly hypothetical. Europeans have been acting as a jumble of meek states. Right now (literally) is the easiest it will ever be to stop this. If Russia wins and reconstitutes, the future will be much harder.

[big_owl]

No, I believe you are completely on the wrong track here.  This thread is full of 100 pages of pontificating that Russia is going to collapse Any. Day. Now...yet here we are 3yrs later and it hasn't happened.  Posters have been wrong over and over again, it's comical.

No it's not, especially since a lot of posts here are from me. What there are a lot of posts is about the estimates that Russia will run out of heavy stuff in teh second half of 2025/beginning of 2026. Which, if you look at how they do attacks on golf cars and bikes, and supplies per donkey instead of using those heavy vehicles, seems to be still right.

The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

Why didn't they do it the 3? 4? times putin himself said that they will finally do this? Why were several Kurk military commanders kicked out? Why dud Putin need to send for North Korean soldiers after NK ammunition?

You are either a troll and/or bathed in and believing Russian propaganda.

No, you're trying to pull the tired old lame strawman argument implying that I'm some sort of russian apologist.   I *am* Ukrainian, to the extent my paternal grandparents lived and died there.   I could pull up any number of posts from you over the past two years where you've implied-adjacent that Russia was going to collapse.  You've been wrong all along which you'd think would give you pause but apparently not. 

You can scream about Russia losing 1000 soldiers per day or whatever.  They don't care.  You can scream about democracy in Ukraine (lmao, have you ever been there?).  Russia doesn't care.  Trying to apply western thinking as to why Russia does this or that is pointless.  They do what they do and no matter how many rambo movies you watched as a kid where the good guy always wins, it's not that way in real life.   Sometimes the bully wins and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Let's revisit this in a couple weeks when the Kursk adventure is over. .you can admit to me you were wrong at that time. 

[GuitarStv]

If anything Russia may try to project strength into Canadas north and the US and Russia will try to do an Ukraine style shakedown of Canada.

Even pre-insane US leadership there has been a lot of talk about the potential for Russian incursions into Canadian territory as climate change melts northern ice and makes previously impossible/difficult to pass areas open up.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

No, I believe you are completely on the wrong track here.  This thread is full of 100 pages of pontificating that Russia is going to collapse Any. Day. Now...yet here we are 3yrs later and it hasn't happened.  Posters have been wrong over and over again, it's comical.

No it's not, especially since a lot of posts here are from me. What there are a lot of posts is about the estimates that Russia will run out of heavy stuff in teh second half of 2025/beginning of 2026. Which, if you look at how they do attacks on golf cars and bikes, and supplies per donkey instead of using those heavy vehicles, seems to be still right.

The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

Why didn't they do it the 3? 4? times putin himself said that they will finally do this? Why were several Kurk military commanders kicked out? Why dud Putin need to send for North Korean soldiers after NK ammunition?

You are either a troll and/or bathed in and believing Russian propaganda.

No, you're trying to pull the tired old lame strawman argument implying that I'm some sort of russian apologist.   I *am* Ukrainian, to the extent my paternal grandparents lived and died there.   I could pull up any number of posts from you over the past two years where you've implied-adjacent that Russia was going to collapse.  You've been wrong all along which you'd think would give you pause but apparently not. 

You can scream about Russia losing 1000 soldiers per day or whatever.  They don't care.  You can scream about democracy in Ukraine (lmao, have you ever been there?).  Russia doesn't care.  Trying to apply western thinking as to why Russia does this or that is pointless.  They do what they do and no matter how many rambo movies you watched as a kid where the good guy always wins, it's not that way in real life.   Sometimes the bully wins and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Let's revisit this in a couple weeks when the Kursk adventure is over. .you can admit to me you were wrong at that time.

Tough talk, no sources.

"Ukraine has advanced 5km (3 miles) deeper into Russian territory during the past week, as Russia again reportedly deployed North Korean forces against it."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/13/ukraine-resumes-the-offensive-in-kursk

[sixwings]

If anything Russia may try to project strength into Canadas north and the US and Russia will try to do an Ukraine style shakedown of Canada.

Even pre-insane US leadership there has been a lot of talk about the potential for Russian incursions into Canadian territory as climate change melts northern ice and makes previously impossible/difficult to pass areas open up.

It’s an issue that’s going to come to a head eventually. Under non insane US leadership the approach was that the US was going to control it with Alaska there. However with the Trump admin it wouldn’t be all that surprising if they coordinated with Russia specifically to try to give Canada a shakedown. Like the US will only help if Canada gives them 80% of the resources or whatever, like in Ukraine. The Trump admin approach may be more that the US military is his personal army and hired thugs, rather than a broader military trying to achieve long term stability.

That said, I’m not sure Russia could actually project enough power that Canada and the UK combined couldn’t deal with it, and it might be 10-15 years too early on the climate change side.

[Telecaster]

The Russians are continuing to make inroads into Kursk and are just several kilometers away from completing a pincer movement to cut off the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk.  Mark my words that this will be seen through the lens of hindsight as a significant blunder by the Ukrainian leadership.  The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

The part that doesn't track with this analysis is that since Kursk, Russia has been doing worse everywhere else on the front.    If we look at the news articles from last August, they seemed to echo what you are saying: 

Russian troops are closing in on the strategic eastern Ukrainian town of Pokrovsk, according to open-source battlefield maps, casting doubts on Ukraine’s hopes that its new offensive into western Russia will prompt Moscow to scale back its attacks elsewhere on the battlefield.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/world/europe/russia-ukraine-pokrovsk-kursk.html

or:

Russia is “rapidly approaching” a key military hub in eastern Ukraine, a local official has said, as Moscow continues its advances despite Kyiv’s surprise gains in its enemy’s Kursk region.
While Pokrovsk is not a major city – about 60,000 people lived there before the war and many have left since the start of the full-scale invasion – it serves as a key hub for the Ukrainian military thanks to its easy access to Kostiantynivka, another military center.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/17/europe/russia-approaching-key-ukraine-city-intl-hnk/index.html

That was six months ago.   Since then, Russian gains have slowed, not increased.  Pokrovsk is still firmly in Ukrainian hands.  The Russian offensive in the Kharkiv direction seems to have completely fizzled.  Since Kursk, Russian gains have been limited to empty fields and small villages.  No significant cities or strategic objectives have been captured.   

It could be as you say that the Russian strategy is to press their advantage elsewhere and come back and get Kursk at their leisure.   But they have very little to show (however you care to measure it) for their efforts in the last six months.  Which raises the question, if that's the Russian strategy, when are they going to press their advantage?  To be sure, Russia still has a big advantage in soldiers and firepower and has the ability to make small localized gains. But that's all they can do and they appear to be getting worse at it.

[Radagast]

You can scream about Russia losing 1000 soldiers per day or whatever.  They don't care.  You can scream about democracy in Ukraine (lmao, have you ever been there?).  Russia doesn't care.  Trying to apply western thinking as to why Russia does this or that is pointless.  They do what they do and no matter how many rambo movies you watched as a kid where the good guy always wins, it's not that way in real life.   Sometimes the bully wins and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Let's revisit this in a couple weeks when the Kursk adventure is over. .you can admit to me you were wrong at that time.

I think it's interesting that you say this, and then conclude that therefore the right thing to do is give up. If Ukraine is surrendered, soon enough Russia will be willing to lose 1,000 per day taking over smaller nations, which will take a lot fewer days. Therefore, my argument is that now is the best time to get it out of Russia's system. Also why do Russian apologists always care about whether Russia cares? Nobody should care whether Russia cares; for as long as they are prepared to invade neighbors, neighbors should be prepared to fight from a position of strength indefinitely. And finally there is something we can do about it. Possibly the US no longer supports freedom, but for European nations this goes beyond freedom or caring and is just existential. Doing something about it is exactly what needs to happen and is well within their capacity.

[Radagast]

The Russians are continuing to make inroads into Kursk and are just several kilometers away from completing a pincer movement to cut off the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk.  Mark my words that this will be seen through the lens of hindsight as a significant blunder by the Ukrainian leadership.  The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

The part that doesn't track with this analysis is that since Kursk, Russia has been doing worse everywhere else on the front.    If we look at the news articles from last August, they seemed to echo what you are saying: 

Russian troops are closing in on the strategic eastern Ukrainian town of Pokrovsk, according to open-source battlefield maps, casting doubts on Ukraine’s hopes that its new offensive into western Russia will prompt Moscow to scale back its attacks elsewhere on the battlefield.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/world/europe/russia-ukraine-pokrovsk-kursk.html

or:

Russia is “rapidly approaching” a key military hub in eastern Ukraine, a local official has said, as Moscow continues its advances despite Kyiv’s surprise gains in its enemy’s Kursk region.
While Pokrovsk is not a major city – about 60,000 people lived there before the war and many have left since the start of the full-scale invasion – it serves as a key hub for the Ukrainian military thanks to its easy access to Kostiantynivka, another military center.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/17/europe/russia-approaching-key-ukraine-city-intl-hnk/index.html

That was six months ago.   Since then, Russian gains have slowed, not increased.  Pokrovsk is still firmly in Ukrainian hands.  The Russian offensive in the Kharkiv direction seems to have completely fizzled.  Since Kursk, Russian gains have been limited to empty fields and small villages.  No significant cities or strategic objectives have been captured.   

It could be as you say that the Russian strategy is to press their advantage elsewhere and come back and get Kursk at their leisure.   But they have very little to show (however you care to measure it) for their efforts in the last six months.  Which raises the question, if that's the Russian strategy, when are they going to press their advantage?  To be sure, Russia still has a big advantage in soldiers and firepower and has the ability to make small localized gains. But that's all they can do and they appear to be getting worse at it.

Right. Even optimistically it was going to take Russia 6 months to take the town, but now it looks like it fizzled out. Interestingly, every forum user, twit, journalist, and media outlet who hyperventilated about Pokrovsk can now be shown to be part of the misinformation sphere. It's really astonishing how bad this is, and even more astonishing that Russia simply dominates western media and nobody cares or even tries to do anything about it.

[Radagast]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-ukraine-russia-zelenskyy-betrayal-rcna193035

[LennStar]

Right. Even optimistically it was going to take Russia 6 months to take the town, but now it looks like it fizzled out. Interestingly, every forum user, twit, journalist, and media outlet who hyperventilated about Pokrovsk can now be shown to be part of the misinformation sphere. It's really astonishing how bad this is, and even more astonishing that Russia simply dominates western media and nobody cares or even tries to do anything about it.

That's not completely true either (imho).
Ukraine has currently stalled the encirclement. But only by a series of counterattacks, something they haven't done anywhere in a concentrated effort except Prokrovsk and Kursk since last summer. The fact alone that it happened showed how dangerous the situation was (would be my interpretation at least). Because I am sure counterattacks didn't happen because of a lack of ressources, not will. Ukraine has shown again and again that they are vastly better in small unit fast action events, and there were many sitations where this would have helped to stabilize the front.

Prokrovsk didn't have good defenses, and the fact how relativly fast Russia got to it and around it compared to e.g. Bakhmut shows that. How much faster or slower they would have been without Kursk is everyone's guess. I think the defense would have gone better without Kursk, but that is really only my guess.

btw. the Austrian army put out a video in English, you might want to watch it for the "official" analysis of them. I haven't watched it, so I can't say what is in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDRjughhXMg

edit: I want to add that the counter attacks in Prokrovsk only happened after a leadership change. Might be conicidence, but I don't think so. It looked more like the first decision of the new commander to show that fighting is still possible.

[big_owl]

The Russians are continuing to make inroads into Kursk and are just several kilometers away from completing a pincer movement to cut off the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk.  Mark my words that this will be seen through the lens of hindsight as a significant blunder by the Ukrainian leadership.  The Russians can squash this incursion at whatever time they feel is most advantageous to them for negotiations.

The part that doesn't track with this analysis is that since Kursk, Russia has been doing worse everywhere else on the front.    If we look at the news articles from last August, they seemed to echo what you are saying: 

Russian troops are closing in on the strategic eastern Ukrainian town of Pokrovsk, according to open-source battlefield maps, casting doubts on Ukraine’s hopes that its new offensive into western Russia will prompt Moscow to scale back its attacks elsewhere on the battlefield.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/world/europe/russia-ukraine-pokrovsk-kursk.html

or:

Russia is “rapidly approaching” a key military hub in eastern Ukraine, a local official has said, as Moscow continues its advances despite Kyiv’s surprise gains in its enemy’s Kursk region.
While Pokrovsk is not a major city – about 60,000 people lived there before the war and many have left since the start of the full-scale invasion – it serves as a key hub for the Ukrainian military thanks to its easy access to Kostiantynivka, another military center.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/17/europe/russia-approaching-key-ukraine-city-intl-hnk/index.html

That was six months ago.   Since then, Russian gains have slowed, not increased.  Pokrovsk is still firmly in Ukrainian hands.  The Russian offensive in the Kharkiv direction seems to have completely fizzled.  Since Kursk, Russian gains have been limited to empty fields and small villages.  No significant cities or strategic objectives have been captured.   

It could be as you say that the Russian strategy is to press their advantage elsewhere and come back and get Kursk at their leisure.   But they have very little to show (however you care to measure it) for their efforts in the last six months.  Which raises the question, if that's the Russian strategy, when are they going to press their advantage?  To be sure, Russia still has a big advantage in soldiers and firepower and has the ability to make small localized gains. But that's all they can do and they appear to be getting worse at it.

What does pokrovsk have to do with Kursk?  You're deflecting.  I never mentioned pokrovsk.  Why don't you post up a time lapse of the ISW Kursk territory map and the changes over time?   Then at least we could have an honest discussion.  You could also post up a map of territory control around pokrovsk and somehow try to convince us that it shows a city "in firm control" by Ukraine.  I certainly wouldn't want to live in a city like that if I were the one "in firm control". 

[big_owl]

You can scream about Russia losing 1000 soldiers per day or whatever.  They don't care.  You can scream about democracy in Ukraine (lmao, have you ever been there?).  Russia doesn't care.  Trying to apply western thinking as to why Russia does this or that is pointless.  They do what they do and no matter how many rambo movies you watched as a kid where the good guy always wins, it's not that way in real life.   Sometimes the bully wins and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Let's revisit this in a couple weeks when the Kursk adventure is over. .you can admit to me you were wrong at that time.

I think it's interesting that you say this, and then conclude that therefore the right thing to do is give up. If Ukraine is surrendered, soon enough Russia will be willing to lose 1,000 per day taking over smaller nations, which will take a lot fewer days. Therefore, my argument is that now is the best time to get it out of Russia's system. Also why do Russian apologists always care about whether Russia cares? Nobody should care whether Russia cares; for as long as they are prepared to invade neighbors, neighbors should be prepared to fight from a position of strength indefinitely. And finally there is something we can do about it. Possibly the US no longer supports freedom, but for European nations this goes beyond freedom or caring and is just existential. Doing something about it is exactly what needs to happen and is well within their capacity.

Dude almost three years ago you were posting on this thread confidently predicting an imminent Russian collapse, I can post up the quotes if you prefer.  You were dead wrong, and have been, so I'm not sure why you're making big noise now as if you know better than anybody else.  You've been wrong most of the way through.  The right thing to do isn't to give up, It's to accept reality on the ground and to find a lasting peace given where we're at.   The Russian apologist strawman is the tell that you're flailing and that you're not being genuine in your attempt at discourse.  When in doubt just throw out the Russian apologist label, right?   You have no idea how I feel about Russia.  Just that my views don't match yours so I'm supposedly an apologist.

[Radagast]

You can scream about Russia losing 1000 soldiers per day or whatever.  They don't care.  You can scream about democracy in Ukraine (lmao, have you ever been there?).  Russia doesn't care.  Trying to apply western thinking as to why Russia does this or that is pointless.  They do what they do and no matter how many rambo movies you watched as a kid where the good guy always wins, it's not that way in real life.   Sometimes the bully wins and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Let's revisit this in a couple weeks when the Kursk adventure is over. .you can admit to me you were wrong at that time.

I think it's interesting that you say this, and then conclude that therefore the right thing to do is give up. If Ukraine is surrendered, soon enough Russia will be willing to lose 1,000 per day taking over smaller nations, which will take a lot fewer days. Therefore, my argument is that now is the best time to get it out of Russia's system. Also why do Russian apologists always care about whether Russia cares? Nobody should care whether Russia cares; for as long as they are prepared to invade neighbors, neighbors should be prepared to fight from a position of strength indefinitely. And finally there is something we can do about it. Possibly the US no longer supports freedom, but for European nations this goes beyond freedom or caring and is just existential. Doing something about it is exactly what needs to happen and is well within their capacity.

Dude almost three years ago you were posting on this thread confidently predicting an imminent Russian collapse, I can post up the quotes if you prefer.  You were dead wrong, and have been, so I'm not sure why you're making big noise now as if you know better than anybody else.  You've been wrong most of the way through.  The right thing to do isn't to give up, It's to accept reality on the ground and to find a lasting peace given where we're at.   The Russian apologist strawman is the tell that you're flailing and that you're not being genuine in your attempt at discourse.  When in doubt just throw out the Russian apologist label, right?   You have no idea how I feel about Russia.  Just that my views don't match yours so I'm supposedly an apologist.

Russia did collapse twice or three times in 2022 by the way. Spectacularly in March, fairly so a couple times later in the year. With a small extra bit of effort by Biden it could have been much more so. So I'm still making noise.

Couple more:
Ukraine will still be in Kursk in three weeks.
Ukraine will outlast Trump and Putin.

[big_owl]

You can scream about Russia losing 1000 soldiers per day or whatever.  They don't care.  You can scream about democracy in Ukraine (lmao, have you ever been there?).  Russia doesn't care.  Trying to apply western thinking as to why Russia does this or that is pointless.  They do what they do and no matter how many rambo movies you watched as a kid where the good guy always wins, it's not that way in real life.   Sometimes the bully wins and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Let's revisit this in a couple weeks when the Kursk adventure is over. .you can admit to me you were wrong at that time.

I think it's interesting that you say this, and then conclude that therefore the right thing to do is give up. If Ukraine is surrendered, soon enough Russia will be willing to lose 1,000 per day taking over smaller nations, which will take a lot fewer days. Therefore, my argument is that now is the best time to get it out of Russia's system. Also why do Russian apologists always care about whether Russia cares? Nobody should care whether Russia cares; for as long as they are prepared to invade neighbors, neighbors should be prepared to fight from a position of strength indefinitely. And finally there is something we can do about it. Possibly the US no longer supports freedom, but for European nations this goes beyond freedom or caring and is just existential. Doing something about it is exactly what needs to happen and is well within their capacity.

Dude almost three years ago you were posting on this thread confidently predicting an imminent Russian collapse, I can post up the quotes if you prefer.  You were dead wrong, and have been, so I'm not sure why you're making big noise now as if you know better than anybody else.  You've been wrong most of the way through.  The right thing to do isn't to give up, It's to accept reality on the ground and to find a lasting peace given where we're at.   The Russian apologist strawman is the tell that you're flailing and that you're not being genuine in your attempt at discourse.  When in doubt just throw out the Russian apologist label, right?   You have no idea how I feel about Russia.  Just that my views don't match yours so I'm supposedly an apologist.

Russia did collapse twice or three times in 2022 by the way. Spectacularly in March, fairly so a couple times later in the year. With a small extra bit of effort by Biden it could have been much more so. So I'm still making noise.

Couple more:
Ukraine will still be in Kursk in three weeks.
Ukraine will outlast Trump and Putin.

I think we're using different definitions for the term Collapse.  Yes Russia had to consolidate their positions early on when it became clear Ukraine wasn't going to roll over and die.  Personally I wouldn't call that a true collapse by russia  By that definition Ukraine has been collapsing on the daily for almost three years now.   

Absent some sort of economic black swan in Russia where the government truly collapses (basalt fault eruption or meteor impact?) there is absolutely no chance that Ukraine gets back the territory they've already lost. So any discussion predicated on that is completely pointless nor grounded in reality. 

Frankly, total government collapse in Russia ought to be about the scariest situation for the West. Thousands of nuclear bombs suddenly up for sale to the highest bidder?   That's a nightmare scenario.  The west may consider Putin as some sort of despot dictator but if you examine it objectively he's been a pretty stable force for Russia, like him or not.   

[sixwings]

You can scream about Russia losing 1000 soldiers per day or whatever.  They don't care.  You can scream about democracy in Ukraine (lmao, have you ever been there?).  Russia doesn't care.  Trying to apply western thinking as to why Russia does this or that is pointless.  They do what they do and no matter how many rambo movies you watched as a kid where the good guy always wins, it's not that way in real life.   Sometimes the bully wins and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Let's revisit this in a couple weeks when the Kursk adventure is over. .you can admit to me you were wrong at that time.

I think it's interesting that you say this, and then conclude that therefore the right thing to do is give up. If Ukraine is surrendered, soon enough Russia will be willing to lose 1,000 per day taking over smaller nations, which will take a lot fewer days. Therefore, my argument is that now is the best time to get it out of Russia's system. Also why do Russian apologists always care about whether Russia cares? Nobody should care whether Russia cares; for as long as they are prepared to invade neighbors, neighbors should be prepared to fight from a position of strength indefinitely. And finally there is something we can do about it. Possibly the US no longer supports freedom, but for European nations this goes beyond freedom or caring and is just existential. Doing something about it is exactly what needs to happen and is well within their capacity.

Dude almost three years ago you were posting on this thread confidently predicting an imminent Russian collapse, I can post up the quotes if you prefer.  You were dead wrong, and have been, so I'm not sure why you're making big noise now as if you know better than anybody else.  You've been wrong most of the way through.  The right thing to do isn't to give up, It's to accept reality on the ground and to find a lasting peace given where we're at.   The Russian apologist strawman is the tell that you're flailing and that you're not being genuine in your attempt at discourse.  When in doubt just throw out the Russian apologist label, right?   You have no idea how I feel about Russia.  Just that my views don't match yours so I'm supposedly an apologist.

Russia did collapse twice or three times in 2022 by the way. Spectacularly in March, fairly so a couple times later in the year. With a small extra bit of effort by Biden it could have been much more so. So I'm still making noise.

Couple more:
Ukraine will still be in Kursk in three weeks.
Ukraine will outlast Trump and Putin.

I think we're using different definitions for the term Collapse.  Yes Russia had to consolidate their positions early on when it became clear Ukraine wasn't going to roll over and die.  Personally I wouldn't call that a true collapse by russia  By that definition Ukraine has been collapsing on the daily for almost three years now.   

Absent some sort of economic black swan in Russia where the government truly collapses (basalt fault eruption or meteor impact?) there is absolutely no chance that Ukraine gets back the territory they've already lost. So any discussion predicated on that is completely pointless nor grounded in reality. 

Frankly, total government collapse in Russia ought to be about the scariest situation for the West. Thousands of nuclear bombs suddenly up for sale to the highest bidder?   That's a nightmare scenario.  The west may consider Putin as some sort of despot dictator but if you examine it objectively he's been a pretty stable force for Russia, like him or not.

The death of Putin will get spicy, especially with a militarizing EU. When he dies there’s almost surely going to be internal conflict over who takes over, and the EU may decide they’ve had enough of Russia and either invade(Europe loves invading Russia), successfully support a puppet bring Russia under their sphere of influence, or work with China to completely collapse it and divvy it up amongst themselves. Putin is not young or healthy, could be a very interesting situation.

Long term, Europe must have either Russias or Canadas resources. Wouldn’t surprise me if they decide Russias is easier to get and they are the future aggressors. Europe has been an aggressive military superpower for the last 2940/3000 years.

[Taran Wanderer]

“Europe” isn’t unified enough to do that. They’re more likely to fight among themselves first. I mean, realistically, are Germany and France and Poland and Italy going to act with enough unity to do such a thing, never mind all the smaller states? No way. Plus it’s way too crafty and against the system of international law that is the basis of the whole EU. Yes, that system is currently under assault by Trump and his lackies, but it’s the only thing that can hold the EU together. I think “Europe” is more likely to splinter and fight amongst themselves and solidify their unity to attack someone else.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Seconding that Europe won't draft its citizens to initiate a war with Russia.  Look at per-capita support for Ukraine (earlier in this thread): support declines with distance.  Poland is very concerned, while Spain isn't very concerned.

[reeshau]

Denmark is recently on record of assessing a threat of Russian invasion of EU members may be just a couple of years off.  They deem their military spending increase an "emergency," with speed prioritized.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/19/denmark-to-spend-billions-on-defence-citing-fears-over-russian-rearmament

Building up defensive capabilities will look entirely different than building up offensive capabilities.

[zolotiyeruki]

Given the revelations over the past three years about the state of western European nations' militaries, I can't see them invading anyone, let alone Russia, even in the event of a collapse of the Russian government. Even if they had the capability, there doesn't seem to be any political support for it. Heck, they get heartburn just giving weapons to Ukraine

[Just Joe]

Oh I read that differently - that the EU was building defenses and not an invading force.

[LennStar]

In case someone is interested:

In the German federal elections, the number of voters was the highest since 1990 - make out of it what you want.

The BSW (Putin firendly Leninists build by Sarah Wagenknecht) juuust failed the 5% hurdle and will not be in the parliament, which is good for Ukraine.
Interestingly The Left is in with a surprise jump in voters. While I am with many of their social politics views, their... appeasement stance towards Russia is a no-go if you want a free Ukraine.
FDP (once personal freedom party, now less tax for rich single issue party) also failed, which makes me personally very happy. But I guess voters will forget their performance again, as it has happened 3 times already and they will be back in 4 years.

Winner is nominally the conservative CDU, but real winner is Musk-hope AfD with 20%.
I'll leave out the details but in the end that very likely means a "big coalition" (though the name now no longer applies with AfD 2nd) of CDU and SPD - which was more or less the government of Merkel times. I am not sure if that is the change that everyone promises...

[ChpBstrd]

In case someone is interested:

In the German federal elections, the number of voters was the highest since 1990 - make out of it what you want.

The BSW (Putin firendly Leninists build by Sarah Wagenknecht) juuust failed the 5% hurdle and will not be in the parliament, which is good for Ukraine.
Interestingly The Left is in with a surprise jump in voters. While I am with many of their social politics views, their... appeasement stance towards Russia is a no-go if you want a free Ukraine.
FDP (once personal freedom party, now less tax for rich single issue party) also failed, which makes me personally very happy. But I guess voters will forget their performance again, as it has happened 3 times already and they will be back in 4 years.

Winner is nominally the conservative CDU, but real winner is Musk-hope AfD with 20%.
I'll leave out the details but in the end that very likely means a "big coalition" (though the name now no longer applies with AfD 2nd) of CDU and SPD - which was more or less the government of Merkel times. I am not sure if that is the change that everyone promises...

Danke for the direct report with context!

American media reports like this one tend to use euphemisms like "right-wing" to describe literal Nazis or "left-wing" describe literal Communists. And we're just expected to know the difference between the CDU and the SPD. In fact, we have no clue, and our journalists aren't telling us because they have this narrative format and don't want to sound too textbook-y.

Americans would also be confused to learn that the leftist / communist parties in Germany are Putin-friendly, because most of us think of Putin as a right-wing dictator. But I get it. Name one difference between Putin and Stalin that does not involve hair. Putin is both right wing and left wing. He is the worst of both fascism and communism in one dictator - a monster that can appeal to any extremist, because anyone can paint their wishes onto his blank canvas of theoretical incoherence.

Perhaps in German politics too, it is the extremes that are supporting Putin against the center. This seems like a fragile state of affairs. A centrist coalition government in Berlin is simply waiting for one of its partners to overstep, and then it will fall apart. Perhaps in a year or two, as Andrew Mellon-esque U.S. economic policy leads the world economy into recession, the CDU will announce that the other parties have forced them to negotiate with the AfD, and the 2020's will start to resemble the 1920's.

Another similarity, with ideological flip-flopping: A right-wing version of the 19th-20th century "International" seems to be forming around the U.S. tech billionaires, and they seem to be supporting right-wing politicians in places like El Salvador, Argentina, the UK, France, Italy, and Germany. I suspect the key to maintaining democracy and sovereignty might be to cut off their online propaganda platforms from the nation's internet, just as the West aggressively did with 20th century communist propaganda. You do not owe Elon Musk special rights to free speech; he is an external agitator who would like to see fascism replace your government.