Gazprom Halts Gas Shipments To Europe Via Critical Pipeline

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Meh, I'm starting to think Russia is losing this war.

Ukraine has been able to launch direct attacks on Russian soil. That's embarrassing for a former superpower.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60952125

Putin should just sign a ceasefire and push to keep Crimea. Anything else is pure fantasy on Russia's part.

And it's now the second month, and they don't control Kyiv. That's bad.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

you don't really understand the situation. Reguardless of any consideration on the field, Russia won the war the moment NATo made it clear that a direct intervention was out of the realm of possibilities. At any moment, Putin can drop a nuke on an ucranian city and just blow it up for good.

What happened is that Putin - likely - had a wide variety of strategic objectives by which to modulate actions and demands based on results on the field. Surely among these there was also a scenario that took into account the possibility of a total collapse of the Ukrainian army and consequently the conquest of the entire country, but the fundamental demands and the strategic nucleus of the action was to obtain the dombass region (for the crimean aisle) and the Ukrainian neutrality, which in fact have already been conceded by Zelensky.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

you don't really understand the situation. Reguardless of any consideration on the field, Russia won the war the moment NATo made it clear that a direct intervention was out of the realm of possibilities. At any moment, Putin can drop a nuke on an ucranian city and just blow it up for good.

So why didn't he nuke them from the start? He can't do it without being hit back as well.

What happened is that Putin - likely - had a wide variety of strategic objectives by which to modulate actions and demands based on results on the field. Surely among these there was also a scenario that took into account the possibility of a total collapse of the Ukrainian army and consequently the conquest of the entire country, but the fundamental demands and the strategic nucleus of the action was to obtain the dombass region (for the crimean aisle) and the Ukrainian neutrality, which in fact have already been conceded by Zelensky.

All this proves is that the Ukrainian military was too tough for them. As horrible as both wars were, America never once changed the demands when they invaded Iraq twice. In which case, Putin doesn't look smart for being beaten back.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Putin never changed his demands, he always asked for donbass and neutrality. I suspect that propaganda in America is even worse than the one in Europe.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Putin never changed his demands, he always asked for donbass and neutrality.

That's annexing another country's territory. And if he could pull Donbass & Crimea, he's obviously not going to stop (hence the actual invasion).

Without a swift victory, his demands always looked untenable.

I suspect that propaganda in America is even worse than the one in Europe.

Putin has gone on record saying Ukraine doesn't exist. His politics are all over the place.

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ukraine-history-fact-checking-putin-513812/

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

What are you speaking about? He doesn't want direct control over those regions. He is using the original 2014 autonomy request in order to create one (two?) vassal states that won't be formally part of the Russian Federation but will be protected by Russian army, allowing easy access to Crimea and the black sea. That's the deal. Obviously he would have taken the whole country given the easy opportunity, in the same way America would have gladly taken an Afghanistan vassal state, but that was never the main goal. The main goal, and the only stated goal, was the ucranian neutrality, aka no more NATO close to Russian borders, and the indipendence of the Russian speaking regions (under the very obvious russian influence).

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

What are you speaking about? He doesn't want direct control over those regions. He is using the original 2014 autonomy request in order to create one (two?) vassal states that won't be formally part of the Russian Federation but will be protected by Russian army, allowing easy access to Crimea and the black sea. That's the deal. Obviously he would have taken the whole country given the easy opportunity, in the same way America would have gladly taken an Afghanistan vassal state, but that was never the main goal. The main goal, and the only stated goal, was the ucranian neutrality, aka no more NATO close to Russian borders, and the indipendence of the Russian speaking regions (under the very obvious russian influence).

Why would Ukraine ever agree to ceding their own territory? Especially when there was a previous agreement that Ukraine was not suppose to be invaded after giving up their own nuclear arsenal?

aka no more NATO close to Russian borders, and the indipendence of the Russian speaking regions (under the very obvious russian influence).

If any country wants to join NATO, that's their choice. Saying otherwise is Russia admitting they... want to control their government?

And ironically, Russia invading Ukraine is what forced other countries to now speed up their entry. It seems like it had the opposite effect then intended.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Ukraine will indeed cede his territory to the newly formed state, that's why Russia won the war at week 2. There are no other options on the table.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

What timeline are you living in? We're more than a month into the conflict, not 2 weeks.

There are no other options on the table.

https://files.catbox.moe/r6mosi.gif

Retreating back to Moscow is all part of the plan right?

I don't blame the Ukrainians if they decide to liberate all their occupied territories.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

Russia won the war at week 2, when NATO made it clear a direct intervention was off the table. You're too american to be worth responding at this point, you're basically ignoring the reality making outlandish claims. We can just sit here and wait to see how the war will end, after that you'll surely try to explain to me why ucraina won the war despite losing territory.