SeborrheicDermatitis

I disagree with this. No, I don't think Russia wants to 'annex' all of Ukraine per se, I think the original goal was to invade, quickly topple the government, then set up a puppet state which would be subservient to Russian interests. This would perhaps be combined with an annexation of much of the east. It was set to be a more successful version of Georgia 2008 (which from an operational level was a bit of a screw-up, but Georgia was weak enough that it went well enough anyhow).

Ukraine had signalled its willingness to stay out of NATO before the invasion started. Access to the Black sea was definitely an issue but not the primary war goal, hence why Russia initially directed its most intense attack towards Kyiv (it was not a feint, Russia dedicated a huge amount of manpower here and made an earnest attempt to sweep through the capital here). I think it's pretty obvious the Russian government doesn't care at all about ethnic Russians/Russian speakers as this war has made life a hell of a lot worse for most of them. Plus the accusation of 'genocide' against the Donbass was vastly exaggerated and a clearly cooked up justification.

Sure

I think that is a pretty clear misrepresentation. I was simply saying in a dramatic way that the notion of Russia occupying Odessa and the land all the way down to the Romanian border is outlandish.

I don't have £10 spare right now I'm really struggling sorry, but I plan on having it in a year God Willing. I would've done it but the point is I am certain of it not coming to pass.

PS I am not a liberal, how dare you >:(

I would bet you £10 (or dollar equivalent) that this will not happen, to be donated to a charity of the other's choice, honestly. Absolutely no chance Russia takes Odessa and reaches the Romanian border.

I do not think there is much evidence that the Ukrainian army is seriously demoralised or unable to make weaponry.

Also source on the bit that Ukraine has suffered far higher losses than Russia? From what I've seen UK + US intelligence agencies are saying both sides have heavy losses but Russia has had higher ones overall (that is, since the start in 2022). Ukraine has probably suffered higher losses in the counteroffensive because modern warfare is defender-sided, but since February 2022? Hmm.

Well they won in Mariupol, that was a pretty big win. That's their only major victory in the whole campaign though, for sure. They are losers in this war, though Ukrainians are hardly winning, either. Everybody loses except arms manufacturers, pretty much.

I suppose it hinges on democratic legitimacy. Taiwan obviously is supported (as a de facto state entity) by more or less the whole population. Is the same true for the D/LPRs? Do we think a majority wanted to then join Russia, and that the referendums were free and fair (especially given the 'results' in the Kherson and Kharkhiv regions which did not support Russia).

I don't know the answer to that question, but that is what hinges on whether one supports the existence of the D/LPRs as independent entities. Whether they are truly the reflection of their people's right to self-determination and whether they, as pseudo-states, actually have democratic legitimacy.

I do not see much evidence that Ukraine will just shatter the second it stops getting western support, though. Of course they'll be disadvantaged, but it's not like they're the ANA, is it? I wrote here about it a bit so I wont bother repeating the comment just to save us both some time lol.

Russia can gain more advantage by waiting things out but even if the west stopped supporting it they still have no route forward to 'total victory' as the Russian leadership imagined (quick and easy replacement of the Ukrainian government with one friendly to Russia and beholden entirely to it), just a slightly more advantageous occupation of some parts of the country. Ukrainians wont just give up though, taking big cities is an immensely difficult thing against a dedicated defender and the further in they get, the more difficult it is to defend supply lines.

Source on the thing about Nuland owning/running/operating the ISW? Not heard it before. Not saying you're wrong of course, just genuinely want to learn more!

With regards to the rest of the post, I don't think the conflict is as divided on ethnic lines as you have said. The invasion has been largely opposed by Russian-speakers in Ukraine from all data I've seen, e.g., in areas like Kherson there was massive anti-Russian resistance and a huge swing towards Ukraine. Plus I don't think supporting joining this or that economic bloc or voting for Yanukovych implies outright support for secession and DEFINITELY not invasion. Even if there is real support for Russia in the Donbas region, that still isn't a divide on linguistic/ethnic lines considering the rest of the Russian-speaking part of the country has rallied behind Ukrainian state leadership.

Honestly I don't know popular sentiment in the Donbass and I don't want to make claims beyond the limits of my knowledge, but I do know that the more independent-minded leadership of the D/LPRs were replaced by pro-Russian ones from the 2014-2018 period and that it's quite obvious Russia had a huge role in supporting them, propping up their political leadership, and militarily supporting them from the start. I think Crimea is different as there was way more genuine desire to secede to Russia even before 2014 (though I still think the referendum was rigged as polling beforehand showed a smaller percentage wanting to join-still way over 50% though).

In reality the war has frozen because the correlation of forces is balanced. Neither side will or can win or even move the front lines significantly. I just don't think either side has realised yet. Neither is close to breaking point atm. Russia couldn't even take Bakhmut, and Ukraine cannot make any ground even w/ new western tech in their supposed push towards Melitopol. No winners, only losers.

I fully agree w/ you about NATO's obviously non-altruistic motivations for fuelling the war but I think the Ukrainian position itself has to be considered in the whole conflagration. Without that, we cannot really analyse when and how the war might end. For Ukrainians it's not the case they're being forced or deceived into fighting, it is a war of national survival! It is a war against an aggressor seeking to at the very least oppress Ukrainian national identity if not destroy it entirely as a political and social force. Even without western support the Ukrainians would have fought and Russia wouldn't have won straight away (because they already had a fair few weapons and the west had spent 8 years already reforming and rebuilding the army from 2014 onwards). The thing to remember is that urban combat is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for the attacker. To put it into context, a city the size of Kyiv has not been taken by an enemy against a committed defender since WW2! Taking a city the size of Kyiv or bigger, no battle lasting longer than 8 days (one of the battles for Seoul) has been won by the attacker. Consider the defences being set up for the capital-vast networks of local militia, booby traps and tank traps, every building and every basement being turned into a place for fighting. Russia would have to take this huge city street by street, building by building. This is an incredibly difficult feat. While Russia would obviously be doing a lot better without western arming, the war would still be going on and would be no less bloody. Even Mariupol and especially Bakhmut have been extremely difficult for both sides, Kyiv would be a whole new level, especially since it's the capital.

Then after that there'd still be the whole western half of the country where troops can, at the border, slip into Poland/Romania when needed. There are so many big cities in Ukraine that if they were committed to defending it, taking over the whole country would be insanely difficult. As I say, a committed defender has not lost an urban battle in a city the size of Kyiv since, like, the Battle of Berlin in WW2. It would require a total societal commitment to the war in Russia which Russians are not willing to tolerate. The current Russian Army is not up to the task!

Let's imagine, though, that the end of western support did bring about an impulse for peace within the current leadership. What do you think happens if Zelensky signs a peace deal that gives up land? He, a Russian-speaking Jew who used to be on Russian TV and regularly went to the country. He would be deemed a Russian traitorous Jew and would be overthrown and possibly killed by the nationalist and far-right elements within the Ukrainian Army who have gathered disproportionate strength relative to the actual support for fascist politics in the country since 2014 because of Russia's (yes, and NATO's) actions. Then the war would continue anyway, but likely with far less restraint against Russian-speaking citizens and Russian soldiers.

So at the minute there honestly is NO ROUTE TO PEACE because of the internal dynamics in Ukrainian politics both because the population believes the war is winnable and is committed at all costs to fight for their survival against the aggressor, and because there are spoilers within the Ukrainian state + army that have enough power to effectively 'veto' it. It is impossible to conceive of peace until there is a mutually hurting stalemate between the two sides in which neither believe they can win and in which both are deeply hurting in the status quo such that the value of continuing war is no longer high enough to justify the suffering. We are not there yet, so whether or not the west arms them is quite beside the point. Indeed, if anything it'd bolster Russia and make them less likely to make concessions for peace. Not that I'm supporting this that or the other arming of far-right militias (I believe any armaments should explicitly exclude Azov and such), but I do not believe the logic of bringing about peace held by many of my fellow Hexbears is correct.

You say "NATO brought this on themselves" like they weren't joyous at the prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine but I think this isn't true. The west has worked closely to recreate the Ukrainian Army from the ground up since 2014 (when it was useless) because they knew this was a possibility. This war-launched idiotically by Putin-has benefitted the west alone. Not Russia, and obviously not Ukraine.

-Ukraine is now irrevocably tied to the west and will be for the foreseeable future. Before this, western intelligence agencies were worried Zelensky was too pro-Russian. Not anymore.

-Eastern Ukrainians who speak Russian in their mother tongue are now anti-Russian for the most part.

-Lots of juicy money for western MICs.

-The bulk of the Russian Army is tied down in Ukraine and so cannot be used elsewhere-massive limiting of Russia's strategic manoeuvrability.

-Russian economy damaged (not as much as they thought it would, but it's still damaged) and large-scale brain drain of well-educated Russians who oppose the war who have now fled to Georgia and will seek to move to the west most likely. Also Russians living in the west who are more likely to be liberal will be much less likely to come home.

-Strong consolidation and reification of Ukrainian national identity, meaning far less likely for Ukraine to see Russia as a 'kin state/brotherly nation' akin to Azerbaijan/Turkey.

-Exposes and emphasises the fragmentation and factionalism within the Russian state and security apparatus, (see: Wagner).

-Kills lots of Russians whose families may eventually turn against the state once this war drags on and nothing good comes from it.

What I mean to say is that NATO isn't suffering at all-at least, the Americans and Brits aren't. They're overjoyed! You can't "bring something on yourself" forlornly if you're openly working for it, then it's just a success! I mean I don't think they necessarily worked only for the invasion but basically just various means to bring Ukraine into the western fold, of which this was just one (probably not the ideal) option of many.

It was not a 'rational' or sensible reaction to NATO encroachment. I mean realistically with nuclear weapons the idea that a land invasion of Russia could happen is ludicrous, but even removing that factor there were countless other mechanisms at Putin's disposal to achieve his strategic aims. This invasion was a terrible choice and it only happened because (A) the Russian leadership is full of yes-men who are unable to criticise Putin, (B) because the Russian leadership has become increasingly isolated from the realities on the ground in the last few years and so VASTLY misunderstood how the war would go. They thought it would be like Georgia (though the Georgia War was a mess from a Russian perspective they won anyway because of the vastly unbalanced correlation of forces).

Yes, this is a sensible and thoughtless war, but I think expecting Ukrainians to just give up against an aggressor is fruitless. They will not do it as long as they believe they can win (see Zartman's concept of a mutually hurting stalemate), which both sides currently believe they can. Plus if it's a frozen conflict and more or less even, why would Ukraine 'surrender'? Yes, I think the eventual only possible end to this war will be a surrender of some territory (more likely is simply a frozen conflict), but I don't believe it is politically viable atm and so it is pointless to support it. If Zelensky agreed to surrender territory he'd risk being overthrown and probably killed by the far-right and ultra-nationalist sections of the army/state. The morally best situation would be a return to the status quo ante bellum and a referendum in the east and in Crimea monitored by international IGO/NGO bodies not tied to any particular state, but that wont happen.

The balance of forces is even enough that one side admitting defeat is implausible until the mutual damage from the war is much higher and both sides come to realise it is unwinnable (this is a subjective understanding even if there are objective measures of 'mutually hurting stalemate'.

edit: formatting