Yet the war seems to be going well for the Ukrainians... :up: — ssu

Yep. They say about 60,000 Russian soldiers have died. That's how many Americans died in the whole Vietnam war.

Well, you can think of it in terms of "surrender". But you can also think of it as "saving lives", and potentially the planet.

Or instead of "surrender", we can call it a "stop" in violence. But sadly, this isn't the route being followed. — Manuel

So would you argue that Ukraine should have surrendered in order to save lives? I don't think you can escape the use of that word. It's just what it's called when you bow to your aggressor.

Now negotiations are even further away, given the decree signed by Zelensky. As things stand, this cannot end up going well. — Manuel

Why can't it end with Russia being driven from Ukraine? Do you think it's a foregone conclusion they'll use nukes?

Reports like these have been coming up now and then since earlier in the year ...

Nuclear Weapons Convoy Spotted in Russia (Ground News; Oct 4, 2022)

Unclear what to make of them.

It's a matter of priority: do you think saving many, many lives is worth stopping the war, or are you confident that escalation will defeat Russia? If you think the latter is the case, then of course you wouldn't want to surrender. My intuitions don't lead to that conclusion. But in geopolitical affairs, people differ and are often wrong about what ends up happening.



They don't have many options left. They have few allies that support this war (which is a good thing) and they are a pariah. What I am relatively confident about, is that if the only way out for Russia is total humiliation, they can go crazy.

If they are not offered a way out, which can let them say "we achieved our objectives" - even if it is a total fabrication - I don't like the options remaining. It's a real worry.

It's a matter of priority: do you think saving many, many lives is worth stopping the war, or are you confident that escalation will defeat Russia? If you think the latter is the case, then of course you wouldn't want to surrender. My intuitions don't lead to that conclusion. But in geopolitical affairs, people differ and are often wrong about what ends up happening. — Manuel

I'm having trouble following your thinking, which is all I was trying to do.

Your intuitions say that Russia won't be defeated, so Ukraine should have surrendered in order to save lives? I'm just asking.

You insist on using the word "surrender". If you say "compromise", then I agree with the last statement.

Ukraine has exceeded expectations by far. But stopping now as opposed to later, would be better for everybody.

Again- I could be wrong.

You insist on using the word "surrender". If you say "compromise", then I agree with the last statement. — Manuel

When there's a compromise, both parties walk away with something they wanted. What sort of compromise could there have been during this war?

Ukraine has exceeded expectations by far. — Manuel

I think in large part that's Zelensky.

When there's a compromise, both parties walk away with something they wanted. What sort of compromise could there have been during this war? — frank

Ukraine gets rid of the invaders. Russia keeps Crimea.

Ukraine declares victory against a nuclear power, Russia declares "denazification" successful.

What's negotiated are the cities, which Russia gives back and maybe gets a token piece of territory.

Not unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis. The missiles the US removed from Turkey were technologically obsolete and due for replacement. Of course, the Soviet Union does not mention this bit of news.

Something like that I think could be doable.

Ukraine gets rid of the invaders. Russia keeps Crimea.

Ukraine declares victory against a nuclear power, Russia declares "denazification" successful.

What's negotiated are the cities, which Russia gives back and maybe gets a token piece of territory. — Manuel

Something like that I think could be doable. — Manuel

Manuel, you're not being serious.

Well frank, if you insist that "defeating" Russia is the only commendable and desirable outcome, then we have different notions of seriousness.

I'll let you have the last word here, if you so desire.

Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance. — unenlightened

Do you mean something like this? (happened in Iran today):

No strong violence per se, but they did have to physically push him out and throw things

Ukraine gets rid of the invaders. Russia keeps Crimea. — Manuel

The problem is that this is completely unacceptable to the Russians.

Their issue is Ukraine joining NATO, turning it into a military bulwark on their borders and making Russian access to Crimea a matter of US goodwill.

This has been in the line of expectations since the early 2010's, and nothing short of war would have stopped it.

Any future-proof solution to this conflict has to recognize that the Russians will go to full-scale war, and even nuclear war, over their access to Crimea.

Yep. They say about 60,000 Russian soldiers have died. That's how many Americans died in the whole Vietnam war. — frank

We shouldn't forget how many Ukrainians have died too. This is a huge conventional war and likely it will cost over 100 000 killed in less than a year, which just tells about the ferocity of the fighting.

Ukraine has exceeded expectations by far. But stopping now as opposed to later, would be better for everybody.

Again- I could be wrong. — Manuel

An outcome where Putin can declare victory, having achieved a land bridge to Kyiv and have gotten more territories annexed so that he can declare "Novorossiya" to part of Russia again seems hardly a great outcome.

You can then wait a decade, rebuild your army and attack again.

No, the real problem is that Soviet Union created a continuum for a Russian Empire that should have ended just like Austro-Hungary or any historical multiethnic Empires, which had their roots in Medieval Times. Putin's idea of Russia is imperial. It is a Russia spread across many nations with Russians being on top. It's obvious in the grandeur of the backdrop that Putin uses, with retro-19th Century uniforms worn by the soldiers at the moment when the new territories "joined" Russia.



Since the Soviet Union collapsed peacefully, people like Putin think it was just an accident. Hence the way to redefine the "official" idea of Russia has to come through a similar path as Serbia had with Yugoslavia. And just like the present day Serbia, Russia will likely be cautious of the West even in the future, but will hopefully shed it's imperial ambitions. And that will likely happen with a military defeat.

I'll let you have the last word here, if you so desire. — Manuel

Well, my last word is that I was earnestly trying to understand your point of view because you have a history of being remarkably reasonable.

And then I witnessed that times had changed.

We shouldn't forget how many Ukrainians have died too. This is a huge conventional war and likely it will cost over 100 000 killed in less than a year, which just tells about the ferocity of the fighting. — ssu

Unbelievable. The region won't recover in our lifetime, huh?

I don't disagree with the analysis here. I'm throwing out some ideas of what a negotiation could look like. But something has to be exchanged, I think.



I have trouble seeing a military defeat as being an option for Russia. I really do think they'll risk a nuclear war before being defeated. I hope I am wrong, I really do.



Well - I had my streak, alas, all things come to an end, even being reasonable I guess.

But thanks for the past compliments.

It turns out there is no debate. — frank

Yes. If you decide to ignore all counterarguments, that tends to be the outcome.

Has anyone noticed that Kazakhstan is sort the same shape as Ukraine only larger? Kazakhstan looks like the big brother of Ukraine.

I don't disagree with the analysis here. I'm throwing out some ideas of what a negotiation could look like. But something has to be exchanged, I think. — Manuel

It's tough.

A neutral Ukraine is and has been the long-term solution to tensions between NATO and Russia, but the trust that makes such a thing feasible has been shattered. The United States and Ukraine will not trust Russia to respect Ukraine's neutrality and vice versa, and in both cases I would argue the distrust is well-founded.

Russia holding on to the areas it has currently occupied (creating a safe corridor to Crimea) is probably the bare minimum of what they will accept unless they are militarily completely defeated, but given the rhetoric from the United States and Ukraine, it is unlikely this will be accepted.

That's the issue - what is acceptable to one side is completely unacceptable to the other and vice versa.

No, the real problem is that... — ssu

@Manuel's question was about the solution, not the problem. It's lazy virtue signaling to just whinge on about the extent to which Russia's attitude is the problem. The question is what course of action we should endorse as a solution to it.

Unbelievable. The region won't recover in our lifetime, huh? — frank

Ummm...depends on just how old you are. :wink:

I have trouble seeing a military defeat as being an option for Russia. I really do think they'll risk a nuclear war before being defeated. I hope I am wrong, I really do. — Manuel

I don't. Russia has seen it's share of defeats (just like the US with Vietnam and Afghanistan), which have brought political instability.

The sane nuclear escalation would be an underground nuclear test in Novaja Zemlya test site or somewhere else.



The insane escalation would be to try to hit Ukrainian formations with tactical nuclear weapons. This is harder than it sounds as Ukrainian battlegroups don't move in tight confined formations to create great targets. And hitting an airbase or military command center near a town or city would simply make some Ukrainian place name have the similar creepy vibe as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They already have Chernobyl, you know.

The question is what course of action we should endorse as a solution to it. — Isaac

If you want the aggressor to have a face saving victory, I guess now would be the perfect time to have an immediate cease-fire and set Russian territorial gains to start where the no-mans land is now. A time-out is what the Russian army needs now.

Yes. One cannot have negotiations if neither side offers an inch. This is not sustainable, particularly to Russia, I think they will get even more desperate. I don't know if there any "doves" in the Pentagon, but surely they must have at least one person thinking about de-escalation, instead of the obsessions of "defeating Russia", which sounds like suicide to me.

You're correct, it is extremely tough.



It seems obvious to you and me. But what I'm seeing from the people who disagree on the general thrust of our arguments (not every detail, as is normal) is that Putin is like Hitler or so, so evil.

This is a cartoonization of the real world. Reminds me quite a bit of the propaganda used in WWI. Very dangerous thinking, in my opinion.

I'll grant you Afghanistan, no doubt.

Back then Russia (The USSR) was not the target of the most severe sanctions a country has seen. Maybe North Korea faces sanctions at these levels.

Russia still needs to sell a PR "win" for this to end. What, are they going to say "we lost" and go home? That would be remarkable.

This is far, far bigger than Afghanistan, as it includes NATO and the rest of the world, with the whole food production issue plus the energy crisis. In short, many more elements are in play now.

Yes. If you decide to ignore all counterarguments, that tends to be the outcome. — Isaac

I was trying to put the arguments into words. We ran into a ditch somewhere around expecting Ukraine to accept a compromise that Putin has not offered.

I didn't ask for your assessment. I think you know why.

This is a cartoonization of the real world. Reminds me quite a bit of the propaganda used in WWI. Very dangerous thinking, in my opinion. — Manuel

Yes, it's frightening how quickly these sorts of narratives can take hold, as if the past weren't written in black and white for everyone to see.

Go back a few years and read literally any foreign affairs strategist writing about the region, the topics will be the far right in Ukraine, black market arms, Russian oil and gas, and talk of Putin's internal power politics. Now everyone's pretending like Ukraine is some sort of doe-eyed Disney hero, and Putin's the devil and we've always known it. But the writing is still online, no one was talking that way before the invasion. It's scary-level denial.

Russia has seen it's share of defeats (just like the US with Vietnam and Afghanistan — ssu

They went well didn't they. Good job Russia were defeated in Afghanistan otherwise the place might be absolute hell...oh, wait, it is.

I didn't ask for your assessment. I think you know why. — frank

Yes, because it's easier to ignore my questions than it is to answer them.

I'll grant you Afghanistan, no doubt. — Manuel

The other one, which I had in mind (and apparently many in Russia have thought about also), is the Russo-Japanese War. That was a war started by Russia with high hopes of a victorious war and with severe contempt and underestimation of the Asian foe. And the under performance of the Russian armed forces came as a surprise to everybody, which just showed the underlying problems of the Empire.



Russia made a peace which was quite unfavorable for it, but the reality at the war's end dictated this.

Yes, that was a defeat for them too, but remember they were going through quite significant internal turmoil. These days, in which everything is televised, seen on the internet, Twitter and so on, it is much more humiliating. But the crucial difference here, is the extent of the people in play NATO vs. Russia, not Ukraine vs. Russia.

These are "mortal enemies" so to speak. If they can avoid humiliation on such a scale, they have the option. Losing in Afghanistan is peanuts compared to this, for historical reasons and tensions going beyond Ukraine, such as establishing Russia's place in the world. I'm sure such things are in the minds of, not only Putin, but the people around him too.

Now, if you have a situation in which the military gets tired and get rid of Putin, OK. Maybe that ends the war. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, we don't know if that would work well.

Now, if you have a situation in which the military gets tired and get rid of Putin, OK. Maybe that ends the war. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, we don't know if that would work well. — Manuel

I don't think anyone is now eager to jump into Putin's place.

As it's just now speculated that the north of the Kherson front might be collapsing (or retreating), the thing with Russia and Russians is the severe beating that they can endure and still persist. Just remember how it was after one and a half years of fighting in 1941-1942? Or how successful Napoleon was until he finished in Moscow?

Yet the fact is that the battlefield here is limited: Ukrainian troops will stop at the Russian border. The West can keep up such aid as it's giving now for quite a while. And now the mobilized troops can basically be formed into meaningful units for a spring offensive. Putin can likely continue the war longer than anticipated. Still, a collapse is also possible, although rather unlikely.

Russia still needs to sell a PR "win" for this to end. — Manuel

I wouldn't worry about that. The current regime have some of the best crafters of PR ever; a chekist runs it, he's an astute PR professional himself.