- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:41 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:41 am to Darth_Vader
What does this look like hypothetically, with respect to territory controlled?
Is it worth ceasefire and NATO+EU membership with current territory, but thousands more dead Russians? Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Just curious on opinions.
Is it worth ceasefire and NATO+EU membership with current territory, but thousands more dead Russians? Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Just curious on opinions.
6
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:52 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
What does this look like hypothetically, with respect to territory controlled?
Is it worth ceasefire and NATO+EU membership with current territory, but thousands more dead Russians? Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Just curious on opinions.
I think this is the million dollar question. Not sure how you can agree to any ceasefire if you are Ukraine while Putin is in power. All that will do is allow him to restock and attack at some other time. He's already shown his cards.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:00 am to DabosDynasty
I think that, earlier on in the conflict, most Western leaders still envisioned a future in which Russia kept control of Crimea, as it was always the part of Ukraine that was the most pro-Russian, and since the Russian takeover eight years ago, it has undoubtedly gotten much more pro-Russian. Re-integrating it back into Ukraine is a challenging concept.
But I think that most Western leaders are coming around to the realization that Ukraine's long-term security really depends on a demilitarized Crimea. Ukraine cannot depend on the Azov Sea if Russia controls the Kerch Strait. Ukraine's economy depends on the Port of Odesa, and that's not secure at all when Russia has a massive naval base at Sevastopol. And of course, Russia could again invade from Crimea and threaten Kherson.
So, any long-term resolution to this war needs to give real security guarantees to Ukraine, and that's not possible with a Russian military presence in Crimea. Thus, Crimea needs to be independent, a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, or fully integrated back into Ukraine.
I further think that Western leaders have realized that long-distance strike capabilities such as GLSDB, JDAM-ER, Storm Shadow, and perhaps ATACMS mean that Russia will not be able to hold Crimea too much longer.
They will run out of fuel very quickly, long before they run out of ammo or food.
But I think that most Western leaders are coming around to the realization that Ukraine's long-term security really depends on a demilitarized Crimea. Ukraine cannot depend on the Azov Sea if Russia controls the Kerch Strait. Ukraine's economy depends on the Port of Odesa, and that's not secure at all when Russia has a massive naval base at Sevastopol. And of course, Russia could again invade from Crimea and threaten Kherson.
So, any long-term resolution to this war needs to give real security guarantees to Ukraine, and that's not possible with a Russian military presence in Crimea. Thus, Crimea needs to be independent, a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, or fully integrated back into Ukraine.
I further think that Western leaders have realized that long-distance strike capabilities such as GLSDB, JDAM-ER, Storm Shadow, and perhaps ATACMS mean that Russia will not be able to hold Crimea too much longer.
quote:
basically starve out the Russians in Crimea
They will run out of fuel very quickly, long before they run out of ammo or food.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 9:02 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:01 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
What does this look like hypothetically, with respect to territory controlled?
Is it worth ceasefire and NATO+EU membership with current territory, but thousands more dead Russians? Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Just curious on opinions.
My logical peace plan since the start has been this:
1. Russia ceases its war in Ukraine and pays costs of reconstruction.
2. All Russian commanders/soldiers who conducted war crimes would be handed over to the Hague.
3. Russia ends support for the DNR/LNR breakaway regions and allows them to be reintegrated into Ukraine but with a form of limited autonomy. Russia gives up any future territorial claims in the Donbas.
4. Any person who wishes to go to Russia will be allowed to leave and those that decide to stay will be granted pardons by Ukraine.
5. Ukraine foregoes any territorial claims to Crimea.
6. A DMZ will be created on the Ukrainian/Russian border and Belarusian/Ukrainian border and patrolled by international peacekeepers.
7. Ukraine agrees not to pursue NATO membership but will receive Western security guarantees in return and agrees not to host permanent Western military forces. (Only point I'm iffy on because I don't believe Ukraine should limit its foreign policy decisions to appease Moscow)
I know I'm not some super smart diplomat here but that's the fairest solution to both sides. Each side is forced to give up on some of their demands while still getting a "victory" on others.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:12 am to DabosDynasty
Russia has full international recognition of its claim to Crimea
Ukraine is returned all other territory occupied by Russia and is given an expedited membership to NATO and the EU with an agreement to hold no permanent NATO forces or weapons
Ukraine is returned all other territory occupied by Russia and is given an expedited membership to NATO and the EU with an agreement to hold no permanent NATO forces or weapons
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 9:15 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:32 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
What does this look like hypothetically, with respect to territory controlled?
Is it worth ceasefire and NATO+EU membership with current territory, but thousands more dead Russians? Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Just curious on opinions.
Really good questions. All we can do though is speculate on where the lines on the maps will be drawn. What is clear though is right now neither side has the means to knock the other out of the war. It’s the definition of a stalemate right now. But that will not be the case forever. There are two ways this could go:
1. Ukraine, after building up its forces from stocks provided by the West, goes over to the offensive and inflicts a defeat on the Russians sufficient to bring Russia to the negotiating table and the war ends in a settlement. What that final settlement looks like we can only speculate but it should at least be favorable to Ukraine.
2. The anticipated Ukrainian offensive does not achieve sufficient results to force Russia to sue for peace. If this happens then the outlook for Ukraine is not good because in this instance the stalemate would continue. And due to the size of Russia from a resource and manpower standpoint comparative to Ukraine, all Russia would need to do is keep bleeding Ukrainian forces until they reach the point of exhaustion and possibly total collapse. If this happens the peace that follows will definitely favor Russia.
Everything hinges on the outcome of the Ukrainian offensive that we expect to come later this Spring. In my opinion, it’s outcome will determine the outcome of this war.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 10:17 am to DabosDynasty
quote:
Do they need to push Russia back completely in the East, but leave Crimea? If so, does their surrounding postwar allow them to basically starve out the Russians in Crimea if the land bridge is totally destroyed prior to ceasefire?
Assuming Russia negotiates I'm good faith (huge if), then I'm sure part of the ceasefire would include water security for Crimea and security guarantees for the bridge if Ukraine fails to recapture Crimea
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News