[Towered]

Any Western accomodation of Russia after this war will only lead to more violence and aggression. Could it happen? Maybe. The West is admittedly weak willed. But it shouldn't happen. This is Cold War 2.0 and Russia is but one member of that Axis, and Ukraine is one front. Cede it there, we'll be suffering elsewhere.

And I don't think Russia gaining territory is the only possible outcome. Russia itself is rather fragile, with an aging population and a lot of very rebellious minorities.

No concessions or negotiations with Russia are acceptable whatsoever. To hell with them.

 

[kEiThZ]

No concessions or negotiations with Russia are acceptable whatsoever. To hell with them.

I agree. But achieving this requires a strong consensus. Close to what existed during the Cold War. We don't have that yet. People like Trump and Orban and Le Pen would happily deal with Russia just to undermine their political opposition at home. On the flip side, we have leaders like Trudeau who talk a big game but don't actually take the threat seriously enough to put forward the resources necessary to contest or combat the threat. If these things don't change, we may end up conceding to Russia. A sad outcome.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Any Western accommodation of Russia after this war will only lead to more violence and aggression.

Agreed. But historically that's what the West does. The West rarely has the long-term staying power needed nor learns from its mistakes. The US was a founding father of reconstituted Poland after the FWW, but did nothing to protect it between the wars. The West abandoned Afghanistan. Why should we expect different this time?

 

[lead82]

We shouldn’t. The same will happen here. Sadly the war has been lost already. Ukraine lost its a chunk of its land and it’s never going to get it back any time soon. It’s out of weapons and out of men. The West and Ukraine miscalculated in thinking they can win a war of attrition with Russia, which has more manpower to keep the war simmering for years without batting an eye. The war is essentially a stalemate and it’s time to find a way to negotiate a peace deal or at a minimum a cease fire. The EU can’t keep Ukraine running on subsidies forever. The U.S. aid is basically done for the next many years.

While Russia is beligerent country, it is stable and has lots of its own problems to deal with, not least of which is a shrinking population. Sadly the same thing applies to Ukraine. It’s better to hold on to hold onto a key part of the country and give up the eastern most regions. .
We are in the era of might is right. Social and soft power had been proved to be absolutely useless.

 

[kEiThZ]

There are same major differences here. Ukraine is not Afghanistan. It's on the doorstep of the EU. Literally. And Russia's stream of promises of belligerence beyond Ukraine does keep motivation among Eastern Europeans going.

Here in North America, I think it's easy to say we should quit on Ukraine. That's not how a Pole or Balt or Scandinavian sees it. The threat is far more relevant and imminent to them. And unlike the past, as both EU and NATO members, they have substantial control over policy. The US can make peace with Russia, but the US doesn't really trade with Russia. It's only Europe that really matters in this regard. The US is relevant insofar as it brings a ton of arms, and sanctions abilities with the USD. And there's no incentive for the US to lift sanctions even if they end arms supplies.

The war has stablemated. But that does not mean it's over or can't evolve very very quickly. Both sides are rather thin on the ground. And higher production by either side would actually allow an advantage to build up substantially. It's for this reason that lots of people called for substantial aid to Ukraine early. The West really screwed up here.

Beyond Ukraine, if Russia insists on being a long term threat to the Baltics, Scandinavia and Poland, NATO will really need to develop strong defences and deterrence to make sure Ukraine doesn't happen again. And Canada aside, there seems to be genuine interest and efforts on the part of Europe to do this. Not just increasing defence spending. But the speed at which they reduced dependence on Russian oil and gas has been incredible. I don't think Putin ever predicted that. And if China, Iran and North Korea keep backing Russia, I do think the Europeans will come around on Cold War 2.0. they are starting to get very prickly towards the Chinese.

 

[kEiThZ]

While Russia is beligerent country, it is stable

Lol. No. Ever heard of Dagestan. They had to literally reduce Chechnya to dust to keep it. And the only win they got was making a select group of Chechens their Janissaries. Russia is the last major colonial occupier in the world. And it's a corrupt, rotten mess with no real economy beyond resource extraction to speak of. Even their supposed military might has been shown to be a sham with Ukraine (largely reliant on Cold War era stocks and production facilities). I would bet on it falling apart sooner than later.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Even their supposed military might has been shown to be a sham with Ukraine (largely reliant on Cold War era stocks and production facilities). I would bet on it falling apart sooner than later.

If I was China I’d be looking at a northern rather than southern strategy. The latter and its clash with the US doomed Japan, something Japan is well aware of.

Hokushin-ron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unlike imperial Japan, China would be smart about it, supporting political unrest in Siberia and then invading in “support” of Asian ethnic groups. The mid 2030s and 2040s will be interesting times.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ You forget that both of them have nukes?

Besides, China doesn't need to fight for Siberia. They will simply keep building the trade relationships they need and exploit the resources there. The Russian government in Moscow can't really do much about it. Especially, now that they've alienated the alternative markets to China.

 

[Towered]

While it's just simmering at the moment, this conflict is far from over. Crucially, Macron has gotten increasingly impatient and belligerent towards Russia. He recently openly stated that he'd strongly consider sending French troops into Ukraine should Russia achieve any sort of breakthrough and Ukraine officially requests for help. He's one of the few Western European leaders that now understands that Russia cannot be allowed to win this war under any circumstances, also something that he has openly said.

 

[afransen]

The problem is that Russia is unlikely to content itself with its current occupied territory, given that Russia declared the four oblasts as part of its territory, they are leaving a large swath of 'Russia' in Ukrainian hands, including two largish cities.

 

[Admiral Beez]

^ You forget that both of them have nukes?

And yet we see a Russian invasion of thrice nuclear armed NATO as an inevitability of Ukraine’s defeat.

 

[kEiThZ]

And yet we see a Russian invasion of thrice nuclear armed NATO as an inevitability of Ukraine’s defeat.

Because it's not NATO that is nuclear armed but three nuclear weapons states whose resolve is in question when it comes to defending allied territory. It's a valid question whether the UK, France or US would trade nukes with Russia over Latvia or Finland. Trump has pretty much said as much. And France's weak behaviour on Ukraine certainly makes it questionable whether they would actually go to war over Eastern Flank NATO allies. This is not quite the same thing as Russia defending itself from a Chinese invasion of its own territory.

 

[kEiThZ]

While it's just simmering at the moment, this conflict is far from over. Crucially, Macron has gotten increasingly impatient and belligerent towards Russia. He recently openly stated that he'd strongly consider sending French troops into Ukraine should Russia achieve any sort of breakthrough and Ukraine officially requests for help. He's one of the few Western European leaders that now understands that Russia cannot be allowed to win this war under any circumstances, also something that he has openly said.

He found religion after the Wagner group started dismantling French influence in Africa. Funny how that works. They are not nearly as motivated about defending Europe as one would think.

 

[lead82]

Lol. No. Ever heard of Dagestan. They had to literally reduce Chechnya to dust to keep it. And the only win they got was making a select group of Chechens their Janissaries. Russia is the last major colonial occupier in the world. And it's a corrupt, rotten mess with no real economy beyond resource extraction to speak of. Even their supposed military might has been shown to be a sham with Ukraine (largely reliant on Cold War era stocks and production facilities). I would bet on it falling apart sooner than later.

While what you say is true in it doesn’t make it unstable. While Putin is alive, nothing will change but I doubt Russia will fall apart. That’s just wishful thinking. Dagestan / Chechnya have been bought to be sure. But look no further to Iran or N Korea. Those are despot nations but very stable and unlikely to change.

 

[lenaitch]

He found religion after the Wagner group started dismantling French influence in Africa. Funny how that works. They are not nearly as motivated about defending Europe as one would think.

I think relationship with NATO has always been rather ambivalent over the years. In, out, sort of in.