Realitybites said:
"I think long before President Putin, they said there's no way they'd allow that. This has been going on for many, many years. They've been saying that for a long time, that Ukraine cannot go into NATO. And I'm okay with that."
-DJT
A statement echoed by Hegseth.
No NATO membership.
In another statement, no pre-2014 borders.
In another, Trump and Putin will meet without Zelenskyyyyy to negotiate the end of the war.
Glad this thread lasted as long as it did so everyone knows who was right in tbe end.
Oh, and post war Ukraine's fate:
"Millions of Ukrainians have left their country and hundreds of thousands of men are dead and wounded at the front. Now, employers and big capital are already suggesting that the "only solution" is for mass immigration of Third-World migrants. This means that after the war is over, many of the soldiers will come home to a Ukraine that will be rapidly transformed under their feet."
What a win.
LOL SMDH.
Typically miisanthropic mis-analysis. We won because:
Russia failed to return Ukraine to Russian polity.
Russia has 750k fewer people in its manpower pool for the next war.
Russia has 8k fewer tanks available for the next war.
Russia has +17k fewer artillery pieces available for the next war.
Russia has 1/3 fewer ships in its Black Sea Fleet (mostly capital ships).
(I could go on with a list like this for a bit).
Russia hollowed itself out to maintain this war. (when you're borrowing troops and 70yr old arty shells from North Korea, you're pretty much done.)
And the price it paid?
Sweden & Finland now a part of NATO.
Ukraine tied at the navel to the EU for the foreseeable future.
Nato more united than ever.
Nato rearming.
EU severed from Russian energy exports.
Russia pushed to into dependency with its primary rival for the last 1500 years (an alliance with cannot last....).
Foreign troops occupying Russian territory at war's end.
Loss of its naval presence in the Mediterranean.
Loss of its basing rights in Syria.
Loss of military equipment customers (because Russian equipment sucks and they'll have to use 100% of capacity to rebuild).
(I could go on with a list like this for a bit).
The argument that Russia "won" is:
It did not "lose."
It did not reach a 1917-type collapse (which was only 12-18 months away, at most).
it did not get expelled from the territory it currently occupies. (some of which it will have to give back.)
Is all that worth a land bridge to Crimea?
Russia still has Crimea, but cannot use Sebastopol in war. So what's Crimea really worth?
Frankly, I'd prefer to press on, pressure them to the brink & beyond. (You can take it to the bank that threats to do so are what's driven them to the table). But I do recognize the arguments for ending it, almost all of which revolve around the principle of not making perfect the enemy of the good. Russia now knows it cannot match Nato hard power. Russia now knows it cannot match Nato soft power. Russia nearly lost it all in a Ukrainian adventure. Nato/USA lost nothing except money, the total sum of which is a bargain price for accomplishing the foregoing.
Who really got the better of Liddell-Hart's dictum about "winning a better peace."
Who achieved any gains which better insulates themselves for future conflicts?
No question Ukraine did, as it will emerge with ironclad security guarantees and substantial Western investment deals, which will outclass what Russia will have to rebuild with. What does the Russian "better peace" look like? The pain stops. The regime survives.
Now, relieved of the requirement to provide resources to Ukraine, we can focus on getting ready for China to move on Taiwan. That is a loss for China.
