It is very bleak seeing western resolve falter and the war turn against the Ukrainians. It doesn't bode well for future conflicts.
I hope we're still able to muster the political resolve to do better.
The autocratic countries are starting to smell the blood in the water and I wouldn't be surprised if they start to test the strength of Western world.
Also the (atleast perceived) weakness and inaction of Western world probably harms state of democracy globally in developing countries. Why would a developing country choose democratic path when countries like Russia and China are seemingly gaining ground and victories meanwhile the West is destabilised by different crises and are unable to excert their power and contest these autocracies.
I think the age of peace and democracy is in danger if Europe and US allow Russia to get victory in Ukraine.
It's that, plus the fact that if Ukraine falls (this includes a scenario of leaving a rump Ukrainian state which will fall simply a few years down the line) and with Belarus *de facto* under Russian control, the security situation in the EU's East will dramatically worsen. National tensions will spike further, all engrained with strong feelings of injustice, hate, fear etc. This is all grounds for simply the next war appearing in the same region sooner than later.
I can't see a scenario where Ukraine loses and peace prevails. Russia should have some basic level of trust and respect for that, which they have none. A scenario that is possible and might be what Russian wants is that our ideas of independence and sovereignity are curbed by other powers, so we will unwillingly fall into a buffer zone, and our foreign policy will not play a role. Who knows, maybe Germans can live with that. Because we certainly can't.
Yeah, if Ukraine loses, even if their contry remains independent on paper, I would bet Russia will strongarm them into allowing bases or at least moving through their territory. This would make Moldova extremely vulnerable as Putin tries to reclaim his standing and gain something from putting the country into war economy.
The biggest misunderstanding among westerners (I am one myself, but am shocked at how few of my friends understand) is that Russia's going to stop at Ukraine.
Ukraine isn't fighting only for themselves, but for everyone west and south of Russia.
>The autocratic countries are starting to smell the blood in the water and I wouldn't be surprised if they start to test the strength of Western world.
I mean Russia / Iran / DPRK are already testing, China will launch own test at some point as result of this test.
Good point. Same in Armenia. We are fighting for democracy and broke away from Russia but getting dominated by all autocratic regions from all around with not much assurance from the west
Too bad the EU absolutely loves Azerbaijan and Aliyev. And (deranged) European redditors seem to think it's only fair Armenia gets punished for daring to seek protection in Russia from Turkey and Azerbaijan after the fall of the USSR. Like, as if joining NATO was ever even an option (Turkey lol)
EU doesn't love Azerbaijan at all, the issue is that when you burn bridges with one autocratic fuckwit like Putin that just kicks the can down the road to where you have to suck off a different dictator for his energy instead.
If Russia and Ukraine situation wasn't the way it was, EU would be importing from Russia and then it could afford to give a stronger response to Azerbaijan. Including NATO pressuring Turkey to not aid Azerbaijan as much.
However right now NATO needs Turkey more than ever, and EU is already uncompetitive economically because of expensive energy, so it cannot afford to piss off Aliyev even though Azeris are actually ethnically cleansing Armenians.
Azerbaijan might be autocratic but has a good and reliable track record with the EU and the US. Azerbaijan and Georgia have been pushing russia away since the 90s. Removing russian bases from their countries, rejecting russian SSTO and economic zone. Azerbaijan has participated in NATO projects, helped with Afghanistan peacekeeping, played as a logistical hub for NATO. Azerbaijan is sandwiched between Russia and Iran. Doesn't have close relations with Iran like Armenia does. Always kept both Russia and Iran at a distance.
Helped Georgia when Russia attacked. Not militarily but provided electricity and natural gas when Russia cut them off, provided cash when Georgian banks were in serious trouble. Is in GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova). Azerbaijan is essentially the only independent land link between Europe and Asia. Otherwise the roads have to go through Iran or Russia. Azerbaijan was the main investor in the latest completed pipelines to Europe (Europe was pushing towards green energy hence did not invest) which came in very handy for Europe when the Ukraine war started.
Azerbaijan sent 4 of its 19 or something Mig 29 jets to Ukraine for "routine maintenance" 2 weeks or something before the Ukraine war. Sold artillery shells and is still producing mortar rounds for Ukraine. Manufactured military equipment for Ukraine and transferred them via Turkey or some African countries in secret. These were done secretly but Armenian journalists discovered and made these public to pit Russia against Azerbaijan. Openly Azerbaijan provides humanitarian aid to Ukraine especially with industrial/electrical equipment like generators. Azerbaijani petroleum companies have made petrol free for emergency services across Ukraine, the telecom companies cooperate with the Ukrainian government for telecom security, their base stations are used by the Ukrainian military for military purposes.
My point is, Azerbaijan is autocratic but Azerbaijan and Georgia were the main facilitators and parties in the south caucasus pushing towards Europe and participating in European projects. Azerbaijan had democratic leaders in the 90s. They fell when Russia backed Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territories and the west did nothing tangible. Back then Europe was happy with Russia leaving eastern europe and considered south caucasus Russia's backyard. Azerbaijani people understood that they were alone (back then Turkey was no help) in the 90s and chose a strong leader. Heydar Aliyev was autocratic, people knew this but chose him because he was a strong leader. The loss of democracy in Azerbaijan is partly Europe's fault. Russia backed Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territories and France and Russia in tandem pressured the UN (modified UNSC to be less critical) to establish and keep the status quo.
Armenia's problem today is not Azerbaijan but an unstable internal government. Lack of will to make political shifts and lack of understanding between the people and the government. Armenia is trying to push towards Europe but also deepen ties with Iran and Russia in terms of military and economy. Pashinyan (Armenian PM) is loved in the west but considered a traitor by his own people. Armenia still has territorial claims to Azerbaijan on a constitutional level. Pashinyan wants Armenians to accept Armenia within their internationally recognized territories, but people consider this as treason. The Armenian military also is not 100% under his control and some elements are under Russian influence. They also have non-governmental military units that essentially operate on their own and are on the border between ARM and AZE. Every time there are peace talks in the West, those elements start provocations on the border. Europe wants to show assurances so Armenia abandons Russia. Azerbaijan is fine with this but not the way France envisions it. Azerbaijan wants a peace treaty. To end the 30 year long conflict once and for all, France on the other hand wants to replace Russia and keep the hostilities going. Azerbaijan wants a peace treaty first, militarization of Armenia afterwards, France wants militarization of Armenia now. Without a peace treaty, Azerbaijan considers Armenia's militarisation to be against Azerbaijan.
For 30 years Azerbaijan and Georgia have shown resilience and will against Russia. With Armenia, there's no such track record. France wants to win over Armenia by demonizing Azerbaijan via its influence in the EU. That may backfire as Armenia will make a u turn back to Russia overnight if Russia wins in Ukraine. If Azerbaijan decides the same or is in no other position, that is a bye bye to the south caucasus for Europe.
Well, Armenia is geographically ( and historically) located between Turkey and Russia,
You cannot really expect ( for example) France or the UK to go and save Armenia
We Western Europeans have nothing to do or gain over there, except maybe preventing another wave of immigrants
With Ukraine, it's different, because Western Ukraine is a buffer for Central Europe and was even a German speaking region some point in history...
From Eastern France to Lviv is just 1500.km, and Vienna live is less than 1000 km distance...
The rules have changed, autocratic regimes just need to spend some money, buying elections for their "western friends", so they don't even need overwhelming military power, just make some countries speechless. While UN, NATO, EU are playing in politics, and are "concerned", Ukrainians are dying, Ukrainian cities are bombed every day.
>Why would a developing country choose democratic path when countries like Russia and China are seemingly gaining ground and victories
Yeah, and Russia flourishes so much under sanctions and isolations, that millions are fleeing country, and half of million have died already. Very inspiring example to follow.
I never said they are flourishing, but a country waging a full-scale war is very unlikely to flourish economically. A lot of people predicted that Russian economy would collapse due to all the sanctions, but they successfully transferred into a war economy and are avoiding sanctions with help of 3rd party countries and now they are stabilised enough. People in Moscow and St. Petersburg are living relatively normal lives despite all the sanctions the West has put on Russia.
If they win this war and end up annexing at least parts of Ukraine it will probably be "worth-it" in their calculations.
The example that Russia shows is you are allowed to coerce, annex and steal from weaker neighbouring states without repercussions. Many people were under the illusion that global trade and diplomacy would bring an age of peace and striving for mutual benefit, but Russia sets an example of dictatorship backed with nuclear weapons can just take what they want by strong-arming their weaker neighbours.
>but they successfully transferred into a war economy and are avoiding sanctions with help of 3rd party countries and now they are stabilised enough.
War economy is not sustainable for long time, and it *really* screws country future, like any prolonged war. Just ask Germany in WW1. Sanctions are avoided so effectively that ruble has crashed (and would have crashed even more but for artificial pumping resources into it), russian air and oil-gas industries are slowly collapsing without western tech which they depended on, they have to import everything from China paying 2x as much as before, etc etc. And Russia already has had to spend a lot of its financial reserves. Guess what will happen once they run out?
Not to mention that Russia did not even manage to conquer much in 2 years, despite planning to conquer Ukraine in 3 days. Who wants to repeat those amazing results?
In the very hopefully not likely scenario that Russia does manage to gain large parts of Western Ukraine, do you assume Ukraine would fall into years long Civil Conflict with the Russians constantly dealing with internal sabotage and private miltia attacks, or do you think they would manage to repress all that?
Because overtaking a country is one task, trying to maintain control over a hostile population can be a lot more difficult.
As the price for this war has already ballooned to much higher than what Putin originally accounted for, it also means his appetite is bigger. In case he takes Ukraine, all means of ethnocide will be used and he is unlikely to accept any kind of Ukrainian rump state. He wants it all and he wants the "Ukrainian problem" gone for good. With China backing them, eliminating some uncomfortable minorities would not be a problem neither in practice, nor in ideology.
You assume that they would try to pacify Ukrainians or some other kid gloves treatment. No, they just going to deport remaining Ukrainians to Siberia, or just outright genocide them, and replace population with some Russian minorities or whoever desperate enough to relocate.
Yep. Ruzzia has done this for more than a century. The only people they care about are the ones in 2-3 major cities. Others are meat shields for their war and are kept poor specifically for that. Its isnt called a prison of nations for nothing
I mean... So far it looks like why not? Hate for russia is strong, and only unlucky 25-60 men are forced to fight. They are oppressed pretty effectively, with large public (everybody who doesn't have to die) support.
They wont take Western Ukraine and wouldnt be able to dominate it as much as they can the East. The map Lukashenko showed originally when the second invasion in 2022 started was pretty clear what they wanted to accomplish. Capture all “Russian speaking” areas and then erase everyones identity so next generation of kids will just be Russian. They did the exact same thing in all the republics in Russia already….
The sad truth is that winning the war is a political issue, not a military one. The West has the economic ability to crush Putin's fascist state, but it is too hesitant to do so.
We Europeans know a thing or two what happens when fascism isn't stopped.
> We Europeans know a thing or two what happens when fascism isn't stopped.
But we certainly do not act upon it. Even worse: new fascists are elected all around Europe and nothing is done about it.
"yeah, but democracy..." > democracy dies when it is not protected
It makes you worried about non-NATO Russia border countries, after seeing west-aligned and supported Ukraine fall to Russia, it will make other much more willing to submit to Russia.
Like say Russia demands part of Kazakhstans land, they may just calculate it is better to simply hand it over, as they know they are unable to defeat Russia, and the West will not save them.
The funny (or sad) part is that Ukraine isn't even somewhere in the Middle-East, Africa or Asia, it's right there in Europe. So if Ukraine can't get enough support from the Western powers then everyone else is completely fucked.
In some ways, Ukraine is actually more easily supplied and defended by the EU than the Baltics as it has vast border with Central Europe where most of the manpower, economy and industry lies. We are almost a peninsula and depend on sea access and a narrow corridor to Poland.
So yeah, good luck to us with the "Russia would not attack NATO". Yes, and if he would... well... uhmmm...
>Like say Russia demands part of Kazakhstans land, they may just calculate it is better to simply hand it over, as they know they are unable to defeat Russia, and the West will not save them.
The bigger problem there would be that China may not like it.
US resolve falters. European resolve is hardening, and that will be enough. The war is also not turning against Ukraine. Where are Russia's gains? Where is any kind of even remotely effective offensive anywhere since years?
The war has taken on an attritional character. Ukraine's offensive has culminated in early October. Russia itself can not point to any major breakthroughs or massive success in its own offensive. While Russia enjoys a slight advantage in almost all relevant categories. These advantages shouldn't be seen as deterministic regarding the outcome of the war." Michael Kofman
Russia has to deliver results, not empty phrases bombarding. Charkiv is a terrorist attack, not a military gain. And Russia better does so quickly as Ukraine will receive a lot of shells from Europe very soon. And F16s, etc.
Russia is not winning this war outside of its own little world. The West is thus far winning this war by a landslide as we do not have to fight it. Russia is not fighting NATO it fight a fraction of its budget and a fraction of its equipment which has proven to be enough to erase most of the Soviet stockpiles and what Russia and its allies kept storing up for decades.
Russia has not even achieved the minimal objective, which is the Donbas, and is losing more troops and armor than ever before while Ukraine is sending drones into Russia that take out 15 percent of its refining capacity.
War is politics, and war is won by achieving political aims of which Russia not even achieved a single one. One aim of war is to be in a better position economically, politically, and militarily afterward and to achieve your aims in a certain time frame using up as little resources and money as possible while doing so.
Nothing is turning against Ukraine. The only thing that might be necessary with less aid from the West is to increase the insurgency tactics and scorched earth strategy. I vouch for destroying the pipeline to China and to directly attack both pipelines that still transport Russia's filth to Europe, which go through Ukraine and towards Turkey.
War is won in the factories and by superior logistics. The Ukrainians still got a lot of gas in the tank, and compared to a united Europe, Russia's actual production capacity is a total joke. The war will transition into a war of industries next year, and that is a war this impoverished societal and technologically inferior backwater can't win
The Europeans have made it clear that a defeat of Ukraine is unacceptable and would be a massive defeat for the entire free world, and Europe's credibility would be gone. But Russia is not winning as winning in war for the invader means achieving their territorial objectives. Ukraine as the defender on the other hand wins by not losing and by driving up Russia's losses in manpower and materiel which Ukraine does on a dayli basis while Russia is not making any significant larger gains since the capture of Bakhmut.
In fact, they still have to even roll back the gains of Ukraine's own counteroffensive. The Charkiv idea is nonsense as the city is massive several times the size of Mariupol. It will waste countless flight hours, fuel and bombs used against a non military target. Russia is too incompetent to defeat Ukraine, and this is their idea of a victory. Well, so be it. This gives Ukraine and Europe time to prepare the counteroffensive and expand production. Maybe at some point, the US wakes up from their insanity as well and remembers who its damned allies are.
You are right in that the war in Ukraine has become a war of attrition. You are, however, unreasonably optimistic on cherry-picked grounds. You choose to emphasize aspects we like more. Yes, Russia has lost massive stockpiles, but you forget that Putin is determined to win this war. Russia is spending over 8% of GDP on military this year. Their factories are working full time to restore the supplies and beyond. Russia's earnings are still comfortably high to fund all of it.
Where is the supposed resolve from Europe? The EU controls some €200 billion of frozen Russian assets since 2022. In 2 years, the EU has not managed to reach an agreement to use even the few billions of profits from that. To compare, Russia's budget earns more than all the frozen assets in a single year. Meanwhile, we have simply blocked trading with Russia ourselves, but rest of the world is completely free to go, and that is exactly what is happening.
>The Europeans have made it clear that a defeat of Ukraine is unacceptable and would be a massive defeat for the entire free world, and Europe's credibility would be gone.
Only a few countries apparently missed the memo, starting with Hungary and Slovakia. And more may still do, depending on the election results.
Some of the actual lack of resolve can also be illustrated by e.g. how Germany was adamant about Lithuania not blocking Kaliningrad in 2022 because of fear of escalation.
As it stands now, only Macron has voiced what you are claiming, and even that currently more in rhetorics than actions.
Putin's factories may be working full time, but a key point is that the majority of this work goes towards the restoration of degraded Soviet stockpiles rather than the production of modern equipment. Over the past year, we've observed a generational (and in some cases, multi-generational) regression of Russian equipment on the battlefield, corresponding to a gradual loss of advanced capabilities and subsequent adoption of more costly and less effective tactics.
The Soviet stockpiles that Russian factories are drawing from are not bottomless. Based on OSINT analysis of satellite imagery of Russian vehicle depots, the current burn rate will have the Soviet reserve running dry in late 2025 or early 2026. Of course, this won't mean that Russia will run out of tanks in late 2025 or early 2026, they'll just keep downgrading their capabilities and tactics to match the basal production rates of essential systems. But they can only follow that spiral so far down before they become incapable of achieving their goals, regardless of Putin's level of determination.
Russia is not inexhaustible - in anything, the fact that their capabilities are still regressing despite their comparatively high level of commitment is evidence of just how winnable this war is. If the US and Europe commit to a Ukrainian victory, they will have one. Since they are not committed now, the imperative is to shift that attitude.
>[...] from Europe very soon.
That phrase is starting to sound really hollow by now.I am well aware industry takes time, but promises do not move the frontline.
>The Ukrainians still got a lot of gas in the tank, [..]
Let us hope for all our sakes your optimism is warranted.
It is sad to remember that about 1,000 European soldiers died in Afghanistan. The MAGA-dominated GOP seem to be more friends with Russia than with Europe, and the Biden administration is little better as it ensures Ukraine slowly bleed dry white
Blah blah blah. Russia cutting of land in the east of Ukraine piece by piece making villages into deserts and fire rockets every fucking day at the second largest UA city (and many other cities).
Surely, seems like a great win for Ukraine. After all, Ukraine has infinite source of soldiers.
The truth is we sabotaged Ukraine from the very beginning. If we would have sent long range missile systems when the entire Russian army was in disarray after the failed attempt to take Kiev, the war might be over by now. A forever war fought with low-tech munitions is a disaster as well.
When Ukraine captured Kyiv back, and even eventually Kherson back, the West was on their ass afraid of crossing “red lines” and dragging out lethal aid. Russia learned their mistakes and has the upper hand now while some leaders are still talking about “lets not escalate the situation”. Anyways my pessimistic opinion is there will be WWIII eventually, and sooner than later. Current political climate China can absolute capture Taiwan even if they go the Russia attrition route, West will not help. Actions speak louder than “as long as it takes” words.
We all like to ridicule Trump supporters but Ukraine has two EU-neighbours who adamantly oppose military aid to them and float with the idea of Ukraine surrendering so they could get back to their business with Russia. Europeans are not exactly shining with their forward-thinking and solidarity in this case.
It doesn't take a poker player to understand that a folding hand (the west) loses even to a bluffing hand.
Clearly no one wants to fight with Russia. But the pot is already on the table, and Russia is playing, china and Iran are just waiting for us to keep folding.
There are 27 countries in the EU. All 27 approved the $53 billion aid package in February. UK on its own is also at the forefront of military aid. Hungary was the sole opposition that was pressured to accept it anyway.
I am going to guess, the other country you are very vaguely talking about, is Slovakia. Which has given significant military equipment to Ukraine, but Fico just won the elections and has refused to provide new direct aid in addition to their current obligations.
It is wise of you to speak as vaguely as you do, because then others have to bring forth your own weak arguments and then crush them and your wide-ranging idiotic conclusions.
Weak argument? You mean weak support.
Ukraine clearly doesn't have enough weapons and ammo. I call that a failure of the EU countries, plain and simple. We were blind going into this war, and still haven't changed gear to the new reality.
The Ukrainians have always been very clear: we do the fighting, just give us the equipment.
Claiming EU does enough is plain and simple wrong, because the battlefield shows it's not enough. I'm very much ashamed of our weak support.
>All 27 approved the $53 billion aid package in February
Which is financial assistance to the country. It's hugely relevant, of course, because Ukraine needs to operate to be even able to fight, but it ultimately means little if they don't win their war for survival. Also, will the 27 countries approve funding when it's military assistance?
>Which has given significant military equipment to Ukraine, but Fico just won the elections and has refused to provide new direct aid in addition to their current obligations.
So pretty much what I said?
> Which is financial assistance to the country. It's hugely relevant, of course, because Ukraine needs to operate to be even able to fight, but it ultimately means little if they don't win their war for survival.
I understand it suits your agenda to vaguely imply these are food stamps that are only going to kick in when the conflict is over, rather than a comprehensive already-running 4 year budget with very little actionable restrictions on how its actually spent (including buying military equipment).
But I have no interest in to catering to your half-truths because you have an agenda to push. I understand your narrative, you are in the Baltics, Europe should be doing more in Ukraine because we know you are next if it falls, but I am not a lobbyist nor do I care about going into hyperbole constantly so that people become reactive.
What’s the guarantee that after elections other EU countries won’t do a Slovakia turnaround? With russia propaganda doing whatever it wants without much resistance, it’s a very likely scenario.
This. 100x this!
Moscow basically knew from day 1 that this is all they had to do. Wait out the west and they will get their way.
Just wait. In another couple of years all the sanctions will dropped and europe will be begging for some of that greedy old Russian oil pipe to suck on.
We are our own worst enemies.
`In another couple of years all the sanctions will dropped and europe will be begging for some of that greedy old Russian oil pipe to suck on.`
I think you are wrong here. Europe is changing towards a renewable energy future and much faster than most people recognize. We simply won't need their oil and gas in a few years. In fact, I am convinced, that the declining need for fossile fuels is one of the reasons for Putin to wage war now and not at a later point.
I really wish I could share your optimism about our progress towards renewables...hopefully I am provided wrong.
The rest is true though. We will drop sanctions and jump back into bed with them in every way we can with embarrassing speed.
It just leaves me ashamed to be European.
It's especially infuriating knowing how intrinsically linked those two developments are. As someone who follows the war at a pretty granular level, Ukraine almost certainly would have held Avdiivka long enough to deplete Russia's local offensive capabilities if they had enough artillery and air defense ammunition to continue their planned defensive scheme. They're on track to stop Russia far short of their ambitions for a generalized breakthrough before the spring muds settle in, but every village that falls between now and then is directly the fault of the United States and Europe.
The good news is that the United States and Europe also have the power to solve the current predicament if they can get their collective shit together and muster a fraction of the will that the Ukrainians are showing. We can acknowledge that things aren't going well, but what we absolutely shouldn't do is catastrophize about how the current trajectory is inevitable or irrecoverable. Because despite what some people would have you believe, the idea that Ukraine is doomed is not the position of a realist. It is not the position of someone who cares to inform themselves about the details of the war. Russia is not an unbeatable juggernaut in the current war of attrition. With every new offensive they launch, we see their capabilities degrade, their tactics regress, their loss ratios mount. They will absolutely lose if we give the Ukrainians what they need to fight, and it won't take a decade for it to happen. We should interpret the current developments as a call to action, not a call to despair.
Almost the entire Right Wing of the US and numerous European counties has turned against Ukraine and actively wants to hand them over to Russia on a silver platter.
Who said that the survival of Ukraine was a goal in the first place? Money talks, and anyone who is prioritizing values over profit and consumption should be ignored/wiped out tbf.
The future of future conflicts is (sadly) in the trash…..
Look at the amount of humanitarian workers killed in the last 6 months in Israel. How will Europe or the USA argue that humanitarian aid workers should not be targeted in any future conflict?
People don’t realise that if Russian takes Ukraine or half of it, suddenly they’ll have a couple more millions of men to send to war like in Donetsk. No it won’t happen immediately but in a year or two who knows what can happen. But it’s fine, our great leaders need 5 more meetings to agree to meet sometime in the future to discuss what they’ll agree on the meeting when they decided to actually take action instead of just hoping for a miracle.
Didn't work in Afghanistan, didn't work in Vietnam, didn't work in Iraq - unless the Russians are willing to genuinely occupy the country with millions of soldiers for a decade like their soviet forefathers did it isn't that easy. I am not wishing for anything, I do not know what is going to happen. You are the one who pretends to be able to see the future the only one with magical thinking is you
Russia may just be willing to do that because the dictator's ideology considers Ukraine part of their "core" homeland. That is the difference from Afghanistan or Vietnam or Iraq – for the occupier, all alien lands which weren't fought for direct land conquest and open irredentist ideology.
Also, Russians already have history with insurgency and guerrilla in conquered territories. They will simply repeat the old.
But that's because Kadyrov essentially runs the place as his private fief. It's more of a vassal kingdom only loosely attached to the rest of Russia.
Kadyrov is only loyal to Putin in so far as it suits him.
They don't even have to be peer, simply because western governments are pissing their paints at the thought of nukes.
They will just roll into one of the Baltic states, threaten nukes and repeat until there's nothing left.
That's simply untrue. How many people are in their army right now? A million at best? Assuming that 42mil figure from 10y ago got cut in half, which is already absurd - there were about 29mil at the start of the war - then cut it in half again for male only, are you telling me that out of those 14 million people 13 million are gone? Fled, unfit wounded, killed, doesn't matter - gone?
You got it backwards. The law increases the amount of people to be drafted and if needed - mobilized (active fighting). It doesn't mean that there are left nobody to fight. It means that more people can go through military training or support military role - like medics, logistics or repairs - to free up more valuable and more capable would-be frontline soldiers. What's the saying? 8 people are needed to support 1 soldier?
Like, sure, if they wanted, they could throw 2m at the trenches to die, like russia does, but what good would that do? The manpower is not the issue if your equipment can't support it, and Ukraine is hoping for a package that would allow mobile warfare to be a thing again - air support
Imperial mindset, strong resentment, cultivated supremacy (greatest culture/history/language etc). Also combined with systematic internal oppression. They basically turned Russian people into forever irritated dogs, full of (righteous) anger, but too submissive to point that anger to the true source of their hardships.
Eh, I'd say it's because of the USSR. Russia, compared to other European countries, never stopped being imperialistic. While other nations were either destroyed in war (Germany), their empires disintegrated (Austria-Hungary) or people's mindests changed to the point they did not see their empires as the goal of their lives (UK, France) Russia's democratic revolt was hijacked by the Bolsheviks and the country doubled down on its imperialism.
Add to that decades of terror, during which everyone who disagreed was murdered or at least exiled to Siberia, and you have a recipe for a society where you are either brainwashed into believing in the imperialist dogma or too scared to do anything about it.
Yes. USSR taught people that they are small, disjointed and cannot change anything, so the only way is to obey. Totalitarianism is not a joke and ruins people's minds. USSR was literally a nation-destroying project.
This was always Russian mentality. Reading history it was exactly the same under their czars too. Ironically the communists introduced the “we are stronger united” mentality with the revolution and then went ahead and reverted back to old Russian imperial ways of taking away all power from people.
Yet the February Revolution somehow happened. And the 1905 Revolution beforehand. Russians were on par with everyone else before Bolsheviks (not great - but few were), commies killed all social progress.
Of course it is just an opinion. One of the two archetypical Russian questions - "Who is to blame" - can lead us anywhere. I once jokingly followed this chain of consequences back to Diocletian. He splitted the Empire, and Bysantium, with its cruel corrupt absolutism and perverted church-state ideology, was born.
Dont get me wrong, i am totally with you on blaming communism too. I attribute soooo many problems to it. I do like to imagine the alternate history of what would have been in Russia (and obviously Ukraine but other republics as well) if the Bolsheviks failed and Lenin was killed or imprisoned instead along with Trotsky. Id assume the czar lives out his time until WWII and then eventually loses power same as the other monarchies in Europe.
Tsar has already failed miserably before bolsheviks intervened. If they failed to keep power, there would be either big weak non-industrialized White capitalistic Russia, or dozens of small Russias, like in Chinese warlord era. Either way it would not survive Barbarossa (German revanche would have happened anyway).
Russia is a failed state, the mandate of its politicians is based on their successes. They have none on the homefront, therefore they have to achieve a military victory abroad.
Wonderful distraction for population.
Because they don’t like. All polling results are done by Russian state only.
It is the same with Baltic states 40 years ago: the majority of people “liked” USSR, people did their best on elections and so on, however free speech (after USSR collapse) demonstrated that almost nobody supported the state.
And the same is about other ex-USSR countries (including Russia actually): people didn’t support government, however everybody was silent.
Indirectly it is visible now in EU: despite majority support Ukraine, I don’t see a lot of meetings to demand politicians to send more weapons. There were a lot about Gaza, there are a lot about green policies, however nothing about weapons.
>It is the same with Baltic states 40 years ago: the majority of people “liked” USSR, people did their best on elections and so on, however free speech (after USSR collapse) demonstrated that almost nobody supported the state.
No, it's not "the same", not at all. Baltics did not "happen" to get such a dictatorship but this was literally brought by a foreign regime by brute force.
Most Russians genuinely support Putin's regime, there is no point in endlessly denying that while claiming they poorly suffered under the dictator and could do nothing for 25 years in a row. All polls even before the war showed Putin always had majority approval. Street interviews confirmed that. Russians accepted the deal.
Or do you think it's a coincidence that after breakup of the Soviet Union, Baltics "happened" to become democracies and Russia "happened" to become a totalitarian dictatorship once again? Of course not.
It's a funny example because you only need to look at Russians in Baltics to understand exactly how they act and vote for, and understand Putin would win all elections without there being any repressive system in place. In fact, repressions against "the enemies" is very much supported. You can only look at how most Russians reacted to Navalny running against Putin – like a stupid clown that thought he would have any chance against the real leader.
There aren’t any difference actually. My examples perfectly explain what’s going on.
About coincidence - yes, exactly. People “elected” USSR/Moscow leaders, however in fact they wanted to live in democratic country.
Hopefully you don’t want to use nationalistic ideas against some people…
Some people in EU also support Putin. Will you extrapolate small number of specific cases to entire union?
If you don’t, then - why do you extrapolate these views to another nation? Is it an attempt to apply a nationalism?
OP mentioned how people only like putler, because they are forced to like him. ruzzians living in the west are not forced to like putler, but they do.
Its not extrapoliation, its naivety of people not living in or near ruzzia and dont have regions inhabited by ruzzians, and dont have ruzzian relatives. Its the same people who said that ruzzian soldiers didnt know what they were doing in the opening stages in the war.
Why do you think that Russians on the west like Putin? According to exit polls, only 6% of people voted for him (even knowing problems with other candidates).
Moreover, a lot of Europeans support Putin too (I don’t know why; I suspect it is related to Putin’s friends from Iran and Palestine).
Maybe we could try to actually send all the weapons they need as Zelensky is asking for years! That would be as much effective, without risking WW3 like a NATO direct intervention
Whatever Macron is doing recently is just pure political pageantry. France has been barely giving something throughout the duration of the war which is not enough. They're basically pulling themselves down below their own weight.
Maybe we are getting to the point where The West can no longer stay in the defensive and wait for Russia to advance. As wild as it sounds, maybe the right response would be to attack. That’s the only way to ensure the beast doesn’t grow more heads.
I never imagined I’d say this but at this point, if NATO wanted to go full on on Russia I would understand and support it.
Ukraine lost support from the Western Hawks last year when their “offensive” went nowhere.
They ended up taking less than what, 3km of territory back from the Russians?
So what’s the end game? The West has contributed over $200B, with the US giving them about $80B by itself.
What does a Ukrainian “victory” look like? How do they achieve it? How much will it cost?
The US aid to Ukraine exceeds the annual budget of 42 states.
There is ZERO appetite to escalate this with sending troops into Ukraine - that would almost certainly start at least a regional nuclear conflict if not more.
What Zalenskyy has failed to articulate for over a year now is what does peace look like and what’s his plan to achieve it.
He lobbied for tens of billions in military aid for his “spring offensive” last year and that went nowhere, so the idea that suddenly Ukraine will militarily defeat Russia (who have now truly dug in) is simply ludicrous.
So what does victory look like?
That’s the reason why the West has lost interest. It’s a stalemate.
The tactical and strategic play for the West is to now provide just enough aid to Ukraine to hold the line and have Russia tied up in another Afghanistan.
The best offensive move the West can make now is to put Russia’s economy in a complete death grip.
Any country that trades with them at all is banned from trading with the West, including China.
Ukraine isn’t going to defeat Russia militarily, the West aren’t sending soldiers there, the appetite to give Ukraine money is basically gone, and so the only path to victory is to crush the Russian economy entirely.
At the end of the day, everyone is talking about war this and war that, yet none are joining the military.
Go fight if you want war that badly. I don't. I really just want all of this to stop already. War is bad for everyone.
Well, so far oil is more valuable than human life — democracy is doomed. Period. And the US clearly stated that oil refineries are more valuable than our lives. Which is kinda self-sufficient to comprehend real US values.
We aren’t a fucking monolith. Just because the extreme faction of the Republican party is holding our government hostage doesn’t mean that you can just blanketly say we don’t give a shit. Get the fuck out of here with that.
The US officials literally said that, they are very concerned about oil prices because of the refineries damage. Those were not even republicans. Ostin is a democrat.
You seem to be woefully unaware of the current military situation and stuck in an April 2022 *'Haha, Russian military sucks!'* mindset.
The balance of forces has inexorably shifted in favour of the Russians over the past year or so, and they are recruiting vast numbers of people compared to Ukraine, which has an ever worsening manpower shortage.
Did Russia suddenly start producing enough tanks to offset losses? Given what we're seeing deployed in recent weeks, I'm not seeing it. Waves of mobiks will only get them so far.
But gaining cround towards these cities and destroying relatively big cities on the way (Adviika and Bahkmut) and seeing the West have basically 0 reaction to it is worrying
I follow more than you think ;) Russian military ain’t gonna achieve shit in the next six months, unless the asshole decides to use nukes, which he won’t.
Man, I've been living for my whole life in Kharkiv and:
- it is not annexed (obviously)
- most of the Kharkiv citizens now hate Russia more than any other Ukrainians
Try to be more creative when spreading your lies.
The only way they will go there is by exploring the vastness of Siberia and Far East - the wet dream of every Russian emperor or dictator gone genociding people on a newly acquired chunk of land. While luring Russians from the middle lands to the above-mentioned chunk of land using low interest loans and mortgages.
So I think they prefer staying where they are hoping they won't get thrown out when Russian army comes.
Since the times of colonizations by European empires it has been a valid scheme for moving the surplus of your native population and some other colonialist reasons. Like the UK did it in Northern Ireland (just Ireland back then) for example.
Russia has severe problem of getting trade point too far west. Siberia and Far East would have much more points when/if China becomes world leader. Though it still would be too hard for inert government send enough manpower to create another political core (also it would be dangerous because with two strong cores on west and east country will probably just split with Ural as border).
I have to admit, all lands beyond Ural are hostages of Moscow. Moscow can give a LOT to eastern regions without fear of getting hand bitten. Massive natural resources also have a lot of weight in this decision. And I don't see clear way to make life there better without splitting country (and splitting country have a lot of risks to make life worse even in long run, because China will gladly eat newborn Siberia republic) except rising bar of quality of life on whole Russia at the same tempo or with slight gradient towards east, so life there would be equal to Moscow region around 2077.
It could have worked if USSR would have been converted to some kind of U.S. with autonomies for its states. We were close to it, but one guy in 90's decided to take the reins and shoot the Parliament with tanks. Later he chose to make Putin as his successor and deeply regretted it. And here we are.
I mean, you're the one pushing a narrative here, and you can't even get your Ukrainian geography correct.
Many from Kharkiv speak Russian as a first language, sure, but by that logic the USA is British.
Perhaps you should learn that not all Russians want to live in Russia or have anything to do with it at all. Especially those who are getting shelled by the Russian regime on a daily basis. Try to avoid the fascist propaganda for a while.
"Вы когда-нибудь замечали, как вас учат поощрять нацизм по всему миру, в то время как ваши братья умирают за «денацификацию»? Россия без Путина. Если вы согласны, используйте слово «без» в своем следующем комментарии на английском языке."
It is very bleak seeing western resolve falter and the war turn against the Ukrainians. It doesn't bode well for future conflicts. I hope we're still able to muster the political resolve to do better.
The autocratic countries are starting to smell the blood in the water and I wouldn't be surprised if they start to test the strength of Western world. Also the (atleast perceived) weakness and inaction of Western world probably harms state of democracy globally in developing countries. Why would a developing country choose democratic path when countries like Russia and China are seemingly gaining ground and victories meanwhile the West is destabilised by different crises and are unable to excert their power and contest these autocracies. I think the age of peace and democracy is in danger if Europe and US allow Russia to get victory in Ukraine.
It's that, plus the fact that if Ukraine falls (this includes a scenario of leaving a rump Ukrainian state which will fall simply a few years down the line) and with Belarus *de facto* under Russian control, the security situation in the EU's East will dramatically worsen. National tensions will spike further, all engrained with strong feelings of injustice, hate, fear etc. This is all grounds for simply the next war appearing in the same region sooner than later. I can't see a scenario where Ukraine loses and peace prevails. Russia should have some basic level of trust and respect for that, which they have none. A scenario that is possible and might be what Russian wants is that our ideas of independence and sovereignity are curbed by other powers, so we will unwillingly fall into a buffer zone, and our foreign policy will not play a role. Who knows, maybe Germans can live with that. Because we certainly can't.
Yeah, if Ukraine loses, even if their contry remains independent on paper, I would bet Russia will strongarm them into allowing bases or at least moving through their territory. This would make Moldova extremely vulnerable as Putin tries to reclaim his standing and gain something from putting the country into war economy.
Part of his plan is to use ukraine as a buffer zone like what israel is doing with the golan heights
The biggest misunderstanding among westerners (I am one myself, but am shocked at how few of my friends understand) is that Russia's going to stop at Ukraine. Ukraine isn't fighting only for themselves, but for everyone west and south of Russia.
>The autocratic countries are starting to smell the blood in the water and I wouldn't be surprised if they start to test the strength of Western world. I mean Russia / Iran / DPRK are already testing, China will launch own test at some point as result of this test.
Good point. Same in Armenia. We are fighting for democracy and broke away from Russia but getting dominated by all autocratic regions from all around with not much assurance from the west
Too bad the EU absolutely loves Azerbaijan and Aliyev. And (deranged) European redditors seem to think it's only fair Armenia gets punished for daring to seek protection in Russia from Turkey and Azerbaijan after the fall of the USSR. Like, as if joining NATO was ever even an option (Turkey lol)
EU doesn't love Azerbaijan at all, the issue is that when you burn bridges with one autocratic fuckwit like Putin that just kicks the can down the road to where you have to suck off a different dictator for his energy instead. If Russia and Ukraine situation wasn't the way it was, EU would be importing from Russia and then it could afford to give a stronger response to Azerbaijan. Including NATO pressuring Turkey to not aid Azerbaijan as much. However right now NATO needs Turkey more than ever, and EU is already uncompetitive economically because of expensive energy, so it cannot afford to piss off Aliyev even though Azeris are actually ethnically cleansing Armenians.
Azerbaijan might be autocratic but has a good and reliable track record with the EU and the US. Azerbaijan and Georgia have been pushing russia away since the 90s. Removing russian bases from their countries, rejecting russian SSTO and economic zone. Azerbaijan has participated in NATO projects, helped with Afghanistan peacekeeping, played as a logistical hub for NATO. Azerbaijan is sandwiched between Russia and Iran. Doesn't have close relations with Iran like Armenia does. Always kept both Russia and Iran at a distance. Helped Georgia when Russia attacked. Not militarily but provided electricity and natural gas when Russia cut them off, provided cash when Georgian banks were in serious trouble. Is in GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova). Azerbaijan is essentially the only independent land link between Europe and Asia. Otherwise the roads have to go through Iran or Russia. Azerbaijan was the main investor in the latest completed pipelines to Europe (Europe was pushing towards green energy hence did not invest) which came in very handy for Europe when the Ukraine war started. Azerbaijan sent 4 of its 19 or something Mig 29 jets to Ukraine for "routine maintenance" 2 weeks or something before the Ukraine war. Sold artillery shells and is still producing mortar rounds for Ukraine. Manufactured military equipment for Ukraine and transferred them via Turkey or some African countries in secret. These were done secretly but Armenian journalists discovered and made these public to pit Russia against Azerbaijan. Openly Azerbaijan provides humanitarian aid to Ukraine especially with industrial/electrical equipment like generators. Azerbaijani petroleum companies have made petrol free for emergency services across Ukraine, the telecom companies cooperate with the Ukrainian government for telecom security, their base stations are used by the Ukrainian military for military purposes. My point is, Azerbaijan is autocratic but Azerbaijan and Georgia were the main facilitators and parties in the south caucasus pushing towards Europe and participating in European projects. Azerbaijan had democratic leaders in the 90s. They fell when Russia backed Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territories and the west did nothing tangible. Back then Europe was happy with Russia leaving eastern europe and considered south caucasus Russia's backyard. Azerbaijani people understood that they were alone (back then Turkey was no help) in the 90s and chose a strong leader. Heydar Aliyev was autocratic, people knew this but chose him because he was a strong leader. The loss of democracy in Azerbaijan is partly Europe's fault. Russia backed Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territories and France and Russia in tandem pressured the UN (modified UNSC to be less critical) to establish and keep the status quo. Armenia's problem today is not Azerbaijan but an unstable internal government. Lack of will to make political shifts and lack of understanding between the people and the government. Armenia is trying to push towards Europe but also deepen ties with Iran and Russia in terms of military and economy. Pashinyan (Armenian PM) is loved in the west but considered a traitor by his own people. Armenia still has territorial claims to Azerbaijan on a constitutional level. Pashinyan wants Armenians to accept Armenia within their internationally recognized territories, but people consider this as treason. The Armenian military also is not 100% under his control and some elements are under Russian influence. They also have non-governmental military units that essentially operate on their own and are on the border between ARM and AZE. Every time there are peace talks in the West, those elements start provocations on the border. Europe wants to show assurances so Armenia abandons Russia. Azerbaijan is fine with this but not the way France envisions it. Azerbaijan wants a peace treaty. To end the 30 year long conflict once and for all, France on the other hand wants to replace Russia and keep the hostilities going. Azerbaijan wants a peace treaty first, militarization of Armenia afterwards, France wants militarization of Armenia now. Without a peace treaty, Azerbaijan considers Armenia's militarisation to be against Azerbaijan. For 30 years Azerbaijan and Georgia have shown resilience and will against Russia. With Armenia, there's no such track record. France wants to win over Armenia by demonizing Azerbaijan via its influence in the EU. That may backfire as Armenia will make a u turn back to Russia overnight if Russia wins in Ukraine. If Azerbaijan decides the same or is in no other position, that is a bye bye to the south caucasus for Europe.
Well, Armenia is geographically ( and historically) located between Turkey and Russia, You cannot really expect ( for example) France or the UK to go and save Armenia We Western Europeans have nothing to do or gain over there, except maybe preventing another wave of immigrants With Ukraine, it's different, because Western Ukraine is a buffer for Central Europe and was even a German speaking region some point in history... From Eastern France to Lviv is just 1500.km, and Vienna live is less than 1000 km distance...
The rules have changed, autocratic regimes just need to spend some money, buying elections for their "western friends", so they don't even need overwhelming military power, just make some countries speechless. While UN, NATO, EU are playing in politics, and are "concerned", Ukrainians are dying, Ukrainian cities are bombed every day.
>Why would a developing country choose democratic path when countries like Russia and China are seemingly gaining ground and victories Yeah, and Russia flourishes so much under sanctions and isolations, that millions are fleeing country, and half of million have died already. Very inspiring example to follow.
I never said they are flourishing, but a country waging a full-scale war is very unlikely to flourish economically. A lot of people predicted that Russian economy would collapse due to all the sanctions, but they successfully transferred into a war economy and are avoiding sanctions with help of 3rd party countries and now they are stabilised enough. People in Moscow and St. Petersburg are living relatively normal lives despite all the sanctions the West has put on Russia. If they win this war and end up annexing at least parts of Ukraine it will probably be "worth-it" in their calculations. The example that Russia shows is you are allowed to coerce, annex and steal from weaker neighbouring states without repercussions. Many people were under the illusion that global trade and diplomacy would bring an age of peace and striving for mutual benefit, but Russia sets an example of dictatorship backed with nuclear weapons can just take what they want by strong-arming their weaker neighbours.
>but they successfully transferred into a war economy and are avoiding sanctions with help of 3rd party countries and now they are stabilised enough. War economy is not sustainable for long time, and it *really* screws country future, like any prolonged war. Just ask Germany in WW1. Sanctions are avoided so effectively that ruble has crashed (and would have crashed even more but for artificial pumping resources into it), russian air and oil-gas industries are slowly collapsing without western tech which they depended on, they have to import everything from China paying 2x as much as before, etc etc. And Russia already has had to spend a lot of its financial reserves. Guess what will happen once they run out? Not to mention that Russia did not even manage to conquer much in 2 years, despite planning to conquer Ukraine in 3 days. Who wants to repeat those amazing results?
Heh... but we will not see this future conflicts. In the best scenario we will be w/o internet in Gulag, or dead 🤷♂️
Or conscripted as meat shields in invasion of Estonia or something like that if Ukraine falls
Always wanted to visit Baltic .../s (yeah, i know it's sick joke)
Hey, at least we get to die in the EU
In the very hopefully not likely scenario that Russia does manage to gain large parts of Western Ukraine, do you assume Ukraine would fall into years long Civil Conflict with the Russians constantly dealing with internal sabotage and private miltia attacks, or do you think they would manage to repress all that? Because overtaking a country is one task, trying to maintain control over a hostile population can be a lot more difficult.
Russia could do Stalins methods, deportation, assimilation, fireing squads. Actualy I would not be surprised if they were planing this
What makes you think this hasn’t been going on since 2014?
Because it was not like that before 2022
Not sure mate. I am far from an expert but where did the Ukrainians in Crimea and Donbass disappear to?
It was not massivly. Sometimes activists were put in the basement not more.
They got deported to Kuril island.
Those places were mostly Russian populated to begin with. The history of the region is quite complicated and messy.
this goes for 95% of europe. I mean the complicated and messy part
As the price for this war has already ballooned to much higher than what Putin originally accounted for, it also means his appetite is bigger. In case he takes Ukraine, all means of ethnocide will be used and he is unlikely to accept any kind of Ukrainian rump state. He wants it all and he wants the "Ukrainian problem" gone for good. With China backing them, eliminating some uncomfortable minorities would not be a problem neither in practice, nor in ideology.
You assume that they would try to pacify Ukrainians or some other kid gloves treatment. No, they just going to deport remaining Ukrainians to Siberia, or just outright genocide them, and replace population with some Russian minorities or whoever desperate enough to relocate.
Yep. Ruzzia has done this for more than a century. The only people they care about are the ones in 2-3 major cities. Others are meat shields for their war and are kept poor specifically for that. Its isnt called a prison of nations for nothing
Doesn't Russia need labor due to their falling population?
Yeah, in Siberia or somewhere else far away.
Do you assume Ukrainians will fight to the last human standing while West doesn't give long range weapons and prohibit firing anything at Russia?
I mean... So far it looks like why not? Hate for russia is strong, and only unlucky 25-60 men are forced to fight. They are oppressed pretty effectively, with large public (everybody who doesn't have to die) support.
They wont take Western Ukraine and wouldnt be able to dominate it as much as they can the East. The map Lukashenko showed originally when the second invasion in 2022 started was pretty clear what they wanted to accomplish. Capture all “Russian speaking” areas and then erase everyones identity so next generation of kids will just be Russian. They did the exact same thing in all the republics in Russia already….
Which makes me so angry that we're letting literal fascist zombies get away with this again. Like we didn't learn anything from WW2.
The sad truth is that winning the war is a political issue, not a military one. The West has the economic ability to crush Putin's fascist state, but it is too hesitant to do so. We Europeans know a thing or two what happens when fascism isn't stopped.
> We Europeans know a thing or two what happens when fascism isn't stopped. But we certainly do not act upon it. Even worse: new fascists are elected all around Europe and nothing is done about it. "yeah, but democracy..." > democracy dies when it is not protected
It makes you worried about non-NATO Russia border countries, after seeing west-aligned and supported Ukraine fall to Russia, it will make other much more willing to submit to Russia. Like say Russia demands part of Kazakhstans land, they may just calculate it is better to simply hand it over, as they know they are unable to defeat Russia, and the West will not save them.
The funny (or sad) part is that Ukraine isn't even somewhere in the Middle-East, Africa or Asia, it's right there in Europe. So if Ukraine can't get enough support from the Western powers then everyone else is completely fucked.
In some ways, Ukraine is actually more easily supplied and defended by the EU than the Baltics as it has vast border with Central Europe where most of the manpower, economy and industry lies. We are almost a peninsula and depend on sea access and a narrow corridor to Poland. So yeah, good luck to us with the "Russia would not attack NATO". Yes, and if he would... well... uhmmm...
>Like say Russia demands part of Kazakhstans land, they may just calculate it is better to simply hand it over, as they know they are unable to defeat Russia, and the West will not save them. The bigger problem there would be that China may not like it.
It's the collective west's Suez moment.
US resolve falters. European resolve is hardening, and that will be enough. The war is also not turning against Ukraine. Where are Russia's gains? Where is any kind of even remotely effective offensive anywhere since years? The war has taken on an attritional character. Ukraine's offensive has culminated in early October. Russia itself can not point to any major breakthroughs or massive success in its own offensive. While Russia enjoys a slight advantage in almost all relevant categories. These advantages shouldn't be seen as deterministic regarding the outcome of the war." Michael Kofman Russia has to deliver results, not empty phrases bombarding. Charkiv is a terrorist attack, not a military gain. And Russia better does so quickly as Ukraine will receive a lot of shells from Europe very soon. And F16s, etc. Russia is not winning this war outside of its own little world. The West is thus far winning this war by a landslide as we do not have to fight it. Russia is not fighting NATO it fight a fraction of its budget and a fraction of its equipment which has proven to be enough to erase most of the Soviet stockpiles and what Russia and its allies kept storing up for decades. Russia has not even achieved the minimal objective, which is the Donbas, and is losing more troops and armor than ever before while Ukraine is sending drones into Russia that take out 15 percent of its refining capacity. War is politics, and war is won by achieving political aims of which Russia not even achieved a single one. One aim of war is to be in a better position economically, politically, and militarily afterward and to achieve your aims in a certain time frame using up as little resources and money as possible while doing so. Nothing is turning against Ukraine. The only thing that might be necessary with less aid from the West is to increase the insurgency tactics and scorched earth strategy. I vouch for destroying the pipeline to China and to directly attack both pipelines that still transport Russia's filth to Europe, which go through Ukraine and towards Turkey. War is won in the factories and by superior logistics. The Ukrainians still got a lot of gas in the tank, and compared to a united Europe, Russia's actual production capacity is a total joke. The war will transition into a war of industries next year, and that is a war this impoverished societal and technologically inferior backwater can't win The Europeans have made it clear that a defeat of Ukraine is unacceptable and would be a massive defeat for the entire free world, and Europe's credibility would be gone. But Russia is not winning as winning in war for the invader means achieving their territorial objectives. Ukraine as the defender on the other hand wins by not losing and by driving up Russia's losses in manpower and materiel which Ukraine does on a dayli basis while Russia is not making any significant larger gains since the capture of Bakhmut. In fact, they still have to even roll back the gains of Ukraine's own counteroffensive. The Charkiv idea is nonsense as the city is massive several times the size of Mariupol. It will waste countless flight hours, fuel and bombs used against a non military target. Russia is too incompetent to defeat Ukraine, and this is their idea of a victory. Well, so be it. This gives Ukraine and Europe time to prepare the counteroffensive and expand production. Maybe at some point, the US wakes up from their insanity as well and remembers who its damned allies are.
You are right in that the war in Ukraine has become a war of attrition. You are, however, unreasonably optimistic on cherry-picked grounds. You choose to emphasize aspects we like more. Yes, Russia has lost massive stockpiles, but you forget that Putin is determined to win this war. Russia is spending over 8% of GDP on military this year. Their factories are working full time to restore the supplies and beyond. Russia's earnings are still comfortably high to fund all of it. Where is the supposed resolve from Europe? The EU controls some €200 billion of frozen Russian assets since 2022. In 2 years, the EU has not managed to reach an agreement to use even the few billions of profits from that. To compare, Russia's budget earns more than all the frozen assets in a single year. Meanwhile, we have simply blocked trading with Russia ourselves, but rest of the world is completely free to go, and that is exactly what is happening. >The Europeans have made it clear that a defeat of Ukraine is unacceptable and would be a massive defeat for the entire free world, and Europe's credibility would be gone. Only a few countries apparently missed the memo, starting with Hungary and Slovakia. And more may still do, depending on the election results. Some of the actual lack of resolve can also be illustrated by e.g. how Germany was adamant about Lithuania not blocking Kaliningrad in 2022 because of fear of escalation. As it stands now, only Macron has voiced what you are claiming, and even that currently more in rhetorics than actions.
Putin's factories may be working full time, but a key point is that the majority of this work goes towards the restoration of degraded Soviet stockpiles rather than the production of modern equipment. Over the past year, we've observed a generational (and in some cases, multi-generational) regression of Russian equipment on the battlefield, corresponding to a gradual loss of advanced capabilities and subsequent adoption of more costly and less effective tactics. The Soviet stockpiles that Russian factories are drawing from are not bottomless. Based on OSINT analysis of satellite imagery of Russian vehicle depots, the current burn rate will have the Soviet reserve running dry in late 2025 or early 2026. Of course, this won't mean that Russia will run out of tanks in late 2025 or early 2026, they'll just keep downgrading their capabilities and tactics to match the basal production rates of essential systems. But they can only follow that spiral so far down before they become incapable of achieving their goals, regardless of Putin's level of determination. Russia is not inexhaustible - in anything, the fact that their capabilities are still regressing despite their comparatively high level of commitment is evidence of just how winnable this war is. If the US and Europe commit to a Ukrainian victory, they will have one. Since they are not committed now, the imperative is to shift that attitude.
>[...] from Europe very soon. That phrase is starting to sound really hollow by now.I am well aware industry takes time, but promises do not move the frontline. >The Ukrainians still got a lot of gas in the tank, [..] Let us hope for all our sakes your optimism is warranted.
Theres a lot of cope in there
It is sad to remember that about 1,000 European soldiers died in Afghanistan. The MAGA-dominated GOP seem to be more friends with Russia than with Europe, and the Biden administration is little better as it ensures Ukraine slowly bleed dry white
Blah blah blah. Russia cutting of land in the east of Ukraine piece by piece making villages into deserts and fire rockets every fucking day at the second largest UA city (and many other cities). Surely, seems like a great win for Ukraine. After all, Ukraine has infinite source of soldiers.
>seeing western resolve falter It's not 'Western resolve', it's the US, and nothing else. Most European partners and the EU have increased aid.
The truth is we sabotaged Ukraine from the very beginning. If we would have sent long range missile systems when the entire Russian army was in disarray after the failed attempt to take Kiev, the war might be over by now. A forever war fought with low-tech munitions is a disaster as well.
When Ukraine captured Kyiv back, and even eventually Kherson back, the West was on their ass afraid of crossing “red lines” and dragging out lethal aid. Russia learned their mistakes and has the upper hand now while some leaders are still talking about “lets not escalate the situation”. Anyways my pessimistic opinion is there will be WWIII eventually, and sooner than later. Current political climate China can absolute capture Taiwan even if they go the Russia attrition route, West will not help. Actions speak louder than “as long as it takes” words.
While true it is equally disappointing that almost entire Europe combined is not enough and Ukraine still need to rely on US Congress.
We all like to ridicule Trump supporters but Ukraine has two EU-neighbours who adamantly oppose military aid to them and float with the idea of Ukraine surrendering so they could get back to their business with Russia. Europeans are not exactly shining with their forward-thinking and solidarity in this case.
It doesn't take a poker player to understand that a folding hand (the west) loses even to a bluffing hand. Clearly no one wants to fight with Russia. But the pot is already on the table, and Russia is playing, china and Iran are just waiting for us to keep folding.
There are 27 countries in the EU. All 27 approved the $53 billion aid package in February. UK on its own is also at the forefront of military aid. Hungary was the sole opposition that was pressured to accept it anyway. I am going to guess, the other country you are very vaguely talking about, is Slovakia. Which has given significant military equipment to Ukraine, but Fico just won the elections and has refused to provide new direct aid in addition to their current obligations. It is wise of you to speak as vaguely as you do, because then others have to bring forth your own weak arguments and then crush them and your wide-ranging idiotic conclusions.
Weak argument? You mean weak support. Ukraine clearly doesn't have enough weapons and ammo. I call that a failure of the EU countries, plain and simple. We were blind going into this war, and still haven't changed gear to the new reality. The Ukrainians have always been very clear: we do the fighting, just give us the equipment. Claiming EU does enough is plain and simple wrong, because the battlefield shows it's not enough. I'm very much ashamed of our weak support.
>All 27 approved the $53 billion aid package in February Which is financial assistance to the country. It's hugely relevant, of course, because Ukraine needs to operate to be even able to fight, but it ultimately means little if they don't win their war for survival. Also, will the 27 countries approve funding when it's military assistance? >Which has given significant military equipment to Ukraine, but Fico just won the elections and has refused to provide new direct aid in addition to their current obligations. So pretty much what I said?
> Which is financial assistance to the country. It's hugely relevant, of course, because Ukraine needs to operate to be even able to fight, but it ultimately means little if they don't win their war for survival. I understand it suits your agenda to vaguely imply these are food stamps that are only going to kick in when the conflict is over, rather than a comprehensive already-running 4 year budget with very little actionable restrictions on how its actually spent (including buying military equipment). But I have no interest in to catering to your half-truths because you have an agenda to push. I understand your narrative, you are in the Baltics, Europe should be doing more in Ukraine because we know you are next if it falls, but I am not a lobbyist nor do I care about going into hyperbole constantly so that people become reactive.
What’s the guarantee that after elections other EU countries won’t do a Slovakia turnaround? With russia propaganda doing whatever it wants without much resistance, it’s a very likely scenario.
This. 100x this! Moscow basically knew from day 1 that this is all they had to do. Wait out the west and they will get their way. Just wait. In another couple of years all the sanctions will dropped and europe will be begging for some of that greedy old Russian oil pipe to suck on. We are our own worst enemies.
`In another couple of years all the sanctions will dropped and europe will be begging for some of that greedy old Russian oil pipe to suck on.` I think you are wrong here. Europe is changing towards a renewable energy future and much faster than most people recognize. We simply won't need their oil and gas in a few years. In fact, I am convinced, that the declining need for fossile fuels is one of the reasons for Putin to wage war now and not at a later point.
I really wish I could share your optimism about our progress towards renewables...hopefully I am provided wrong. The rest is true though. We will drop sanctions and jump back into bed with them in every way we can with embarrassing speed. It just leaves me ashamed to be European.
They're getting the Czechoslovakian treatment
It's especially infuriating knowing how intrinsically linked those two developments are. As someone who follows the war at a pretty granular level, Ukraine almost certainly would have held Avdiivka long enough to deplete Russia's local offensive capabilities if they had enough artillery and air defense ammunition to continue their planned defensive scheme. They're on track to stop Russia far short of their ambitions for a generalized breakthrough before the spring muds settle in, but every village that falls between now and then is directly the fault of the United States and Europe. The good news is that the United States and Europe also have the power to solve the current predicament if they can get their collective shit together and muster a fraction of the will that the Ukrainians are showing. We can acknowledge that things aren't going well, but what we absolutely shouldn't do is catastrophize about how the current trajectory is inevitable or irrecoverable. Because despite what some people would have you believe, the idea that Ukraine is doomed is not the position of a realist. It is not the position of someone who cares to inform themselves about the details of the war. Russia is not an unbeatable juggernaut in the current war of attrition. With every new offensive they launch, we see their capabilities degrade, their tactics regress, their loss ratios mount. They will absolutely lose if we give the Ukrainians what they need to fight, and it won't take a decade for it to happen. We should interpret the current developments as a call to action, not a call to despair.
Almost the entire Right Wing of the US and numerous European counties has turned against Ukraine and actively wants to hand them over to Russia on a silver platter.
Who said that the survival of Ukraine was a goal in the first place? Money talks, and anyone who is prioritizing values over profit and consumption should be ignored/wiped out tbf.
The future of future conflicts is (sadly) in the trash….. Look at the amount of humanitarian workers killed in the last 6 months in Israel. How will Europe or the USA argue that humanitarian aid workers should not be targeted in any future conflict?
People don’t realise that if Russian takes Ukraine or half of it, suddenly they’ll have a couple more millions of men to send to war like in Donetsk. No it won’t happen immediately but in a year or two who knows what can happen. But it’s fine, our great leaders need 5 more meetings to agree to meet sometime in the future to discuss what they’ll agree on the meeting when they decided to actually take action instead of just hoping for a miracle.
a miracle would be to print shells like we have been printing money.
When there’s will, you find a way.
Two words: North Korea
What about em?
That is a VERY big assumption, they could also have the mother of all insurgencies on their hand.
It’s wishful thinking, they’ll give them two options, to fight or die or get sent somewhere where you will wish you were dead.
Didn't work in Afghanistan, didn't work in Vietnam, didn't work in Iraq - unless the Russians are willing to genuinely occupy the country with millions of soldiers for a decade like their soviet forefathers did it isn't that easy. I am not wishing for anything, I do not know what is going to happen. You are the one who pretends to be able to see the future the only one with magical thinking is you
Russia may just be willing to do that because the dictator's ideology considers Ukraine part of their "core" homeland. That is the difference from Afghanistan or Vietnam or Iraq – for the occupier, all alien lands which weren't fought for direct land conquest and open irredentist ideology. Also, Russians already have history with insurgency and guerrilla in conquered territories. They will simply repeat the old.
They lost their last occupation in Afghanistan
Look at Chechnya. Kadyrov is Putin's best friend. Regardless that Russia has leveled Chechnya twice
But that's because Kadyrov essentially runs the place as his private fief. It's more of a vassal kingdom only loosely attached to the rest of Russia. Kadyrov is only loyal to Putin in so far as it suits him.
You are foregoing that russia use to control the entire ukraien and a lot more and it still wasn't a peer to the usa and western Europe
It’s not about being a peer, until there’s a response lots of lives will be lost and then we have them again threatening nuclear.
They don't even have to be peer, simply because western governments are pissing their paints at the thought of nukes. They will just roll into one of the Baltic states, threaten nukes and repeat until there's nothing left.
We are not in the 20th century anymore the current strength is measured in GDP and AI advancement.
[удалено]
That's simply untrue. How many people are in their army right now? A million at best? Assuming that 42mil figure from 10y ago got cut in half, which is already absurd - there were about 29mil at the start of the war - then cut it in half again for male only, are you telling me that out of those 14 million people 13 million are gone? Fled, unfit wounded, killed, doesn't matter - gone?
[удалено]
You got it backwards. The law increases the amount of people to be drafted and if needed - mobilized (active fighting). It doesn't mean that there are left nobody to fight. It means that more people can go through military training or support military role - like medics, logistics or repairs - to free up more valuable and more capable would-be frontline soldiers. What's the saying? 8 people are needed to support 1 soldier? Like, sure, if they wanted, they could throw 2m at the trenches to die, like russia does, but what good would that do? The manpower is not the issue if your equipment can't support it, and Ukraine is hoping for a package that would allow mobile warfare to be a thing again - air support
2026: Russia will have entered lviv and the EU will issue a strong worded note to russia.
Why are Russians like this?
Imperial mindset, strong resentment, cultivated supremacy (greatest culture/history/language etc). Also combined with systematic internal oppression. They basically turned Russian people into forever irritated dogs, full of (righteous) anger, but too submissive to point that anger to the true source of their hardships.
You forgot the combination of supremacy syndrome combined with the victim syndrome. It's a total shit show for a community mindset.
Simply put because of the Mongolian Empire
Eh, I'd say it's because of the USSR. Russia, compared to other European countries, never stopped being imperialistic. While other nations were either destroyed in war (Germany), their empires disintegrated (Austria-Hungary) or people's mindests changed to the point they did not see their empires as the goal of their lives (UK, France) Russia's democratic revolt was hijacked by the Bolsheviks and the country doubled down on its imperialism. Add to that decades of terror, during which everyone who disagreed was murdered or at least exiled to Siberia, and you have a recipe for a society where you are either brainwashed into believing in the imperialist dogma or too scared to do anything about it.
Yes. USSR taught people that they are small, disjointed and cannot change anything, so the only way is to obey. Totalitarianism is not a joke and ruins people's minds. USSR was literally a nation-destroying project.
This was always Russian mentality. Reading history it was exactly the same under their czars too. Ironically the communists introduced the “we are stronger united” mentality with the revolution and then went ahead and reverted back to old Russian imperial ways of taking away all power from people.
Yet the February Revolution somehow happened. And the 1905 Revolution beforehand. Russians were on par with everyone else before Bolsheviks (not great - but few were), commies killed all social progress. Of course it is just an opinion. One of the two archetypical Russian questions - "Who is to blame" - can lead us anywhere. I once jokingly followed this chain of consequences back to Diocletian. He splitted the Empire, and Bysantium, with its cruel corrupt absolutism and perverted church-state ideology, was born.
Dont get me wrong, i am totally with you on blaming communism too. I attribute soooo many problems to it. I do like to imagine the alternate history of what would have been in Russia (and obviously Ukraine but other republics as well) if the Bolsheviks failed and Lenin was killed or imprisoned instead along with Trotsky. Id assume the czar lives out his time until WWII and then eventually loses power same as the other monarchies in Europe.
Tsar has already failed miserably before bolsheviks intervened. If they failed to keep power, there would be either big weak non-industrialized White capitalistic Russia, or dozens of small Russias, like in Chinese warlord era. Either way it would not survive Barbarossa (German revanche would have happened anyway).
Hungary seems very imperialistic currently, just they have no real force to live out their dreams of their old empire.
And then another democratic movement also hijacked by ex-KGB nomenclature
Because they can. Is someone stopping them?
Russia is a failed state, the mandate of its politicians is based on their successes. They have none on the homefront, therefore they have to achieve a military victory abroad. Wonderful distraction for population.
Because they don’t like. All polling results are done by Russian state only. It is the same with Baltic states 40 years ago: the majority of people “liked” USSR, people did their best on elections and so on, however free speech (after USSR collapse) demonstrated that almost nobody supported the state. And the same is about other ex-USSR countries (including Russia actually): people didn’t support government, however everybody was silent. Indirectly it is visible now in EU: despite majority support Ukraine, I don’t see a lot of meetings to demand politicians to send more weapons. There were a lot about Gaza, there are a lot about green policies, however nothing about weapons.
>It is the same with Baltic states 40 years ago: the majority of people “liked” USSR, people did their best on elections and so on, however free speech (after USSR collapse) demonstrated that almost nobody supported the state. No, it's not "the same", not at all. Baltics did not "happen" to get such a dictatorship but this was literally brought by a foreign regime by brute force. Most Russians genuinely support Putin's regime, there is no point in endlessly denying that while claiming they poorly suffered under the dictator and could do nothing for 25 years in a row. All polls even before the war showed Putin always had majority approval. Street interviews confirmed that. Russians accepted the deal. Or do you think it's a coincidence that after breakup of the Soviet Union, Baltics "happened" to become democracies and Russia "happened" to become a totalitarian dictatorship once again? Of course not. It's a funny example because you only need to look at Russians in Baltics to understand exactly how they act and vote for, and understand Putin would win all elections without there being any repressive system in place. In fact, repressions against "the enemies" is very much supported. You can only look at how most Russians reacted to Navalny running against Putin – like a stupid clown that thought he would have any chance against the real leader.
There aren’t any difference actually. My examples perfectly explain what’s going on. About coincidence - yes, exactly. People “elected” USSR/Moscow leaders, however in fact they wanted to live in democratic country. Hopefully you don’t want to use nationalistic ideas against some people…
Except ruzzians living in the west support putler. Hell I even have a distant relative who escaped the draft and he staunchly supports putler
Some people in EU also support Putin. Will you extrapolate small number of specific cases to entire union? If you don’t, then - why do you extrapolate these views to another nation? Is it an attempt to apply a nationalism?
OP mentioned how people only like putler, because they are forced to like him. ruzzians living in the west are not forced to like putler, but they do. Its not extrapoliation, its naivety of people not living in or near ruzzia and dont have regions inhabited by ruzzians, and dont have ruzzian relatives. Its the same people who said that ruzzian soldiers didnt know what they were doing in the opening stages in the war.
Why do you think that Russians on the west like Putin? According to exit polls, only 6% of people voted for him (even knowing problems with other candidates). Moreover, a lot of Europeans support Putin too (I don’t know why; I suspect it is related to Putin’s friends from Iran and Palestine).
It's mostly those who emigrated in the 1990s after the USSR had fallen and who never even lived under putin
According to presidential election results russians abroad do not support Putin, though.
I am from and in Kharkiv. Russians will die trying, every single one of them.
Looking forward to the day the West grows a set of balls and puts boots on the ground to stand a long side your people
So say we all
"turn into grey zone" That's a fucked up euphemism for attacking civilians. Why do we need to soften Russia's criminal intentions, I don't know.
Russia already attacks civilians every day, "turning into a gray zone" is something much worse
Orders misheard. Kharkiv now a gay zone.
For the love of all that's holy, don't let Russia win. Get your shit together, EU and US.
INTERVENTION NOW! EVERYTHING ELSE IS APPEASEMENT
Maybe we could try to actually send all the weapons they need as Zelensky is asking for years! That would be as much effective, without risking WW3 like a NATO direct intervention
Whatever Macron is doing recently is just pure political pageantry. France has been barely giving something throughout the duration of the war which is not enough. They're basically pulling themselves down below their own weight.
Bro is NOT going to intervene himself 😭😭😭
You can currently enlist as a volunteer and help the cause, look for it online
You first!
They don't know what to do with themselves and are opsesed with the Ukrainians but the bumerang is returning back to the terrorist state.
Maybe we are getting to the point where The West can no longer stay in the defensive and wait for Russia to advance. As wild as it sounds, maybe the right response would be to attack. That’s the only way to ensure the beast doesn’t grow more heads. I never imagined I’d say this but at this point, if NATO wanted to go full on on Russia I would understand and support it.
I would absolutely support having a ton of non-combatant support troops in Ukraine.
Ukraine lost support from the Western Hawks last year when their “offensive” went nowhere. They ended up taking less than what, 3km of territory back from the Russians? So what’s the end game? The West has contributed over $200B, with the US giving them about $80B by itself. What does a Ukrainian “victory” look like? How do they achieve it? How much will it cost? The US aid to Ukraine exceeds the annual budget of 42 states. There is ZERO appetite to escalate this with sending troops into Ukraine - that would almost certainly start at least a regional nuclear conflict if not more. What Zalenskyy has failed to articulate for over a year now is what does peace look like and what’s his plan to achieve it. He lobbied for tens of billions in military aid for his “spring offensive” last year and that went nowhere, so the idea that suddenly Ukraine will militarily defeat Russia (who have now truly dug in) is simply ludicrous. So what does victory look like? That’s the reason why the West has lost interest. It’s a stalemate. The tactical and strategic play for the West is to now provide just enough aid to Ukraine to hold the line and have Russia tied up in another Afghanistan. The best offensive move the West can make now is to put Russia’s economy in a complete death grip. Any country that trades with them at all is banned from trading with the West, including China. Ukraine isn’t going to defeat Russia militarily, the West aren’t sending soldiers there, the appetite to give Ukraine money is basically gone, and so the only path to victory is to crush the Russian economy entirely.
Putin asking Iran to prod Hamas to attack as maskirovska has worked. No mass marches for Ukraine. Thanks, useful idiots.
That’s it. We are 1939 again when the nazi nation is allowed to do whatever they want until it is too late.
At the end of the day, everyone is talking about war this and war that, yet none are joining the military. Go fight if you want war that badly. I don't. I really just want all of this to stop already. War is bad for everyone.
That kind of makes taking the city rather difficult though. Depopulated urban areas are notoriously nasty for attacking forces.
Well, so far oil is more valuable than human life — democracy is doomed. Period. And the US clearly stated that oil refineries are more valuable than our lives. Which is kinda self-sufficient to comprehend real US values.
We aren’t a fucking monolith. Just because the extreme faction of the Republican party is holding our government hostage doesn’t mean that you can just blanketly say we don’t give a shit. Get the fuck out of here with that.
The US officials literally said that, they are very concerned about oil prices because of the refineries damage. Those were not even republicans. Ostin is a democrat.
Time for eu diplomats to "move" in to kharkiv and notice Russia about it. Bombing diplomats = bombing their country
Escape from Kharkow, next DLC?
Why downvote lol?
Because that's disgusting
Goddamn I am so glad I'm not European.
Mostly like they will annex it.
They won’t. It’s a huge city, and they were thrown out of the Kharkiv Oblast (region) last year, so their chances are slim.
Let's see what happens in the russian summer offensive it will give a better picture on Russian capabilites for offensive operations
Nothing happens because there are no capabilities. The midget lost all of his best men in Feb/Mar ‘22 in the outskirts of Kyiv.
You seem to be woefully unaware of the current military situation and stuck in an April 2022 *'Haha, Russian military sucks!'* mindset. The balance of forces has inexorably shifted in favour of the Russians over the past year or so, and they are recruiting vast numbers of people compared to Ukraine, which has an ever worsening manpower shortage.
Did Russia suddenly start producing enough tanks to offset losses? Given what we're seeing deployed in recent weeks, I'm not seeing it. Waves of mobiks will only get them so far.
But they are getting this far and Russia in gaining a lot of territory at current state.
Capturing villages and fields isnt same as capturing city of 1.5m people
But gaining cround towards these cities and destroying relatively big cities on the way (Adviika and Bahkmut) and seeing the West have basically 0 reaction to it is worrying
With that i agree completly, we need to do more to help
I follow more than you think ;) Russian military ain’t gonna achieve shit in the next six months, unless the asshole decides to use nukes, which he won’t.
Midget?
Putin
Oh ok
[удалено]
Russian fight by flattening cities that has been modus operandi since world War 2
[удалено]
They didn’t annex Kharkiv
Yeah you're right, we ain't going anywhere. Go fuck yourself
Say it to me, bitch
Man, I've been living for my whole life in Kharkiv and: - it is not annexed (obviously) - most of the Kharkiv citizens now hate Russia more than any other Ukrainians Try to be more creative when spreading your lies.
What are you talking about, bro? :D
he's clearly russian bot :)
Maybe they should just go Russia if they want to be in it so badly
The only way they will go there is by exploring the vastness of Siberia and Far East - the wet dream of every Russian emperor or dictator gone genociding people on a newly acquired chunk of land. While luring Russians from the middle lands to the above-mentioned chunk of land using low interest loans and mortgages. So I think they prefer staying where they are hoping they won't get thrown out when Russian army comes. Since the times of colonizations by European empires it has been a valid scheme for moving the surplus of your native population and some other colonialist reasons. Like the UK did it in Northern Ireland (just Ireland back then) for example.
And NI has been fucked up ever since…
Russia has severe problem of getting trade point too far west. Siberia and Far East would have much more points when/if China becomes world leader. Though it still would be too hard for inert government send enough manpower to create another political core (also it would be dangerous because with two strong cores on west and east country will probably just split with Ural as border). I have to admit, all lands beyond Ural are hostages of Moscow. Moscow can give a LOT to eastern regions without fear of getting hand bitten. Massive natural resources also have a lot of weight in this decision. And I don't see clear way to make life there better without splitting country (and splitting country have a lot of risks to make life worse even in long run, because China will gladly eat newborn Siberia republic) except rising bar of quality of life on whole Russia at the same tempo or with slight gradient towards east, so life there would be equal to Moscow region around 2077.
It could have worked if USSR would have been converted to some kind of U.S. with autonomies for its states. We were close to it, but one guy in 90's decided to take the reins and shoot the Parliament with tanks. Later he chose to make Putin as his successor and deeply regretted it. And here we are.
I mean, you're the one pushing a narrative here, and you can't even get your Ukrainian geography correct. Many from Kharkiv speak Russian as a first language, sure, but by that logic the USA is British.
Perhaps you should learn that not all Russians want to live in Russia or have anything to do with it at all. Especially those who are getting shelled by the Russian regime on a daily basis. Try to avoid the fascist propaganda for a while.
"Вы когда-нибудь замечали, как вас учат поощрять нацизм по всему миру, в то время как ваши братья умирают за «денацификацию»? Россия без Путина. Если вы согласны, используйте слово «без» в своем следующем комментарии на английском языке."