Tuukka R

Did you think Ukraine was going to retake Crimea?

I do not think Ukraine can overpower the Russia’s army as it stands at the moment. It also cannot win (or lose) through military attrition.

If you think Ukraine can win without additional troops –

Ukraine cannot have a military win over the Russia’s army as it stands at the moment without additional troops.

You’re countering arguments that I have not made. And saying that those arguments that you’re saying but I am not somehow make me a victim of propaganda. The only thing that matters is this combination:

• Militarily neither country is able to advance in any manner.
• Ukraine’s economy is around a tenth of that of Italy or the Russia. The EU is able to cover all of Ukraine’s costs indefinitely.
• The Russia needs to cover its costs by itself, and cannot do that in the medium term.

This means, the two militaries are able to keep the front stable until the economy of one of the two countries collapses. Ukraine’s economy is practically unable to collapse, the Russia’s economy is able to collapse and eventually will. And then the war ends.

One thing I’d ask of you: Please stop covering your ears to realities and descend to the level of us mortals. And give an argument that has something to do with Ukraine or the Russia, not just with men made of straw.

Well, no, I don’t.

But here I write because it is useful to continue this conversation until you have really shown that you have zero arguments to back your claim. The conversation will be read by other people who can draw whatever conclusions one can make from a …conversation? like this.

It’s also an example of how pro-Russia argumentation works in general. You won’t get any actual arguments, except that a Jewish president is somehow a nazi. While that’s not the strongest of arguments, at least it is an argument :)

Ukrainians think they must fight, or surrender and die. Almost nobody in Ukraine thinks the choice is between surrendering and dying, because people there think surrendering us what would cause the dying.

…okay?

Now it’s time for you to spew your talking points in turn, should you have any.

There are two "why"s: Why Kaliningrad became.part of Soviet Union and why it ended up as part of the Russia in 1991. Here the answers to both:

After WWII, Germany had to give USSR a lot of land as a form of reparations. Mostly this was done by handing parts of Germany in the east to Poland, expanding Poland to the west AND them handing the same amount of territory from Poland to USSR, essentially forcibly moving Poland westwards. This was quite an a-hole thing to do to Poland. Also, it had the weird effect that the culture and dialects of easternmost Poland suddenly moved to westernmost parts of Poland. There is a weird dialect border where if you go west past the old German border, suddenly you have eastern dialects. But, the Königsberg area had been an integral part of Germany for a long time before WWII began, so it was possible to simply annex it to USSR and that’s it. Germans were expelled from it, and the area was largely empty. Soviet Union decided to make it part of the state called RSFSR, not a new state, even though the annexed parts of easternmost Germany were not connected to the rest of RSFSR.

When parts of Poland were annexed to USSR in the process of moving Poland westwards, those parts were made part of the “Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic” (which was called “USSR” within Soviet bureaucracy, heh!)

Why the Kaliningrad area wasn’t made a part of the neighbouring “Lithuanian Socialist Soviet Republic”, is an interesting question! Probably because in Ukraine the Russification was already quite far, in Lithuania absolutely not.

In any case, in 1991 the Soviet Union fell. Each state became an independent country. Kaliningrad was a part of RSFSR, and that became the Russian Federation, so Kaliningrad ended up as a part of the Russia.

Let’s delve a bit deeper into this: The Russia surrendering means it exists only within its borders. Ukraine is not going to kill Russians inside the Russia, nor do anything else to them either. They kill what they have to, in order to get the Russia out of Ukraine.

Ukraine surrendering means it exists within no borders whatsoever. The Russia is killing Ukrainians inside Ukraine, and will continue doing so even if the war ends.

So, Putin says Ukraine must surrender or all people of Ukraine in Ukraine will die. And you’re saying it could be said that Ukraine “says” the Russia must surrender or all people of the Russian Federation in Ukraine will die. I think there’s a very important difference between these two. While it would be idiotic to kill all Russians (Rossijskie) in Ukraine, it would still mean “only” killing them in one country outside their own. Killing all Ukrainians in Ukraine would mean killing them in their own country.

Okay, any idea of what the propaganda mill has told me, then?

The facts at hand tell that in the latter half of year 2024 Ukraine received zero military aid from USA. Because of that, the Russia was able to advance at a surpricingly fast pace. Because of this, they managed to conquer as much as 0.7 % of Ukraine’s total territory during that year. Under one percent. When they were fast.

They almost never use tanks anymore, but ATV’s, because they have only the tanks they are able to produce. Which is about 30 per month. Which is a lot, to be honest, but it’s easy for Ukraine to destroy at least one Russian tank per day. And that makes 30 per month as well…

The Russia has had a stable recruitment ability of 25 000 to 35 000 soldiers per month, and are currently losing 1000 to 1400 per day. That makes about 40 000 soldiers lost per month. By far not all of those are deaths, but all of those are permanent losses through very serious wounds or death. When you recruit 35 000 soldiers and lose 40 000, you are not gaining any additional troops. You are keeping their numbers approximately stable, but keeping them approximately stable is what Ukraine is able to do as well. Neither side is able to get additional troops.

Please tell me. What is it that the propaganda mill has told me? I did not feel uncomfortable from what you said, because you said nothing with actual content. You said “simply not true”, and left it to that.

Please tell me something that makes me feel uncomfortable.

The Russia cannot win without additional troops either. And they cannot get those.

Eventually the Russia’s economy will collapse, and at that point it will lose the war and has to leave Ukraine.

Ukraine cannot win the war, but has enough support that it also will not lose it. The Russia cannot win the war, and doesn’t have enough support to avoid eventually losing it.

Once the Russia has lost the war, it has to leave Ukraine, because then there’s nothing it can do to stop Ukrainian forces from taking its territories back.

It is irrelevant that Ukraine cannot win the war, since the Russia is doomed to lose it.

Dude, how do you suppose Ukraine would kill everyone in an area 7000 km wide?

Here’s an article that includes a picture like you asked: https://www.orla.fm/a-disturbing-message-on-the-lithuanian-border-do-not-travel-to-belarus-you-may-not-come-back/

Portugal was lucky to get quite late aboard the F35 ship, as they decided about it as late as April 2024. Finland, where I’m from, was one of the earliest ones, deciding about the procurement in late 2022. Some other ones, as told by Wikipedia:

Canada: Jan 2023 Czechia: Jan 2024 Germany: 2023 Greece: Delivery 2027, so ordered probably in late 2023 or so? Poland: 2020, apparently some already delivered? Romania: November 2024 Singapore: Early 2024 Switzerland: delivery from 2027, so probably ordered in late 2023?

The further the procurement process, the more money might get wasted if the order has to be cancelled. Would still make sense to cancel, though, because a weapon you are free to use as long as there is no war is just a heap of scrap metal. It does not matter how much money we’ve already spent on the scrap metal, we should not put a cent more.

That’s what wise people say. And with that attitude, you’re likely to get both the good relationship and the respect.

But yeah… I’ve never been to USA, or anywhere in America for that matter. But I’ve visited the Russia several times, and even spent a month living there. And the MAGAts are looking pretty similar to the vatniks, and the vatniks (MAGA-analogues of the Russia) have not budged to sense, and have instead consolidated their position to the point that currently 70 to 90 percent of people in the Russia fall in that category, and most of the rest are still supporting their Ruler’s way. (I wonder if “Ruler” is the best way to translate “Vladelets”, the phrase Putin asked to be used of him)

There is still much hope, because in under two years there are the congressional elections, and they seem to have been designed in such a way that Trump will have a hard time trying to either prevent or fake them. But until that… I don’t know… It tells a lot that none of the US products you can buy in Europe have any no-slavery-certificates such as UTZ or Rainforest Alliance. It gives me an impression that people absolutely don’t care about right and wrong there at all. If they don’t, why would they protest in a way that matters to Trump?

Ukraine, back then under Putin’s rule, was shooting protesters in 2014. The people stood firm. A hundred people got shot, the other 42 million avoided slavery.

This assumes that USA can be repaired. It’s entirely possible that their people have crossed the line of no return, and are no longer able to start behaving in a civilized manner on average before crashing spectarularly.

If you don’t trust in the US citizens’ ability to repair their country, there’s not much sense in trying to build a nice relationship with them. And I’m not saying USA cannot repair itself. Maybe it can. What I’m saying is that it is plausible that many people do not believe USA has what it takes.

And do what Lithuania did at the Belarusian border: There are signs telling pretty much the analogue to what you’re suggesting. On the roadside while approaching the border. As physical signs.