re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

ISW Update March 16 2025

quote:

---

Key Takeaways:

US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz stated on March 16 that Ukraine will receive unspecified security guarantees in exchange for unspecified territorial concessions.

The current frontlines do not provide the strategic depth that Ukraine will need to reliably defend against renewed Russian aggression.

Russian officials maintain their maximalist territorial claims over all occupied Ukraine and significant parts of unoccupied Ukraine, however.

Russian officials have given no public indications that they are willing to make concessions on their territorial or security demands of Ukraine.

Russia continues to seize on diplomatic engagements with the United States to normalize its war demands.

The United Kingdom (UK) convened a virtual Coalition of the Willing summit on March 15 to reiterate support for Ukraine and discuss plans for peace.

Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Borova and Russian forces advanced in Sumy Oblast and near Velyka Novosilka.

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) continues efforts to posture as solving issues with the Russian military.

---

What happened to the 7000 Ukrainian troops Putin said he had surrounded? Did he kill them? Take them prisoner? Allow them to escape as another one of his famous humanitarian gestures?

quote:

---

is getting embarrassing at this point

---

The fact that 3 years ago today Russia held about 30% of Ukraine. And today after 1 million dead they hold about 20% of Ukraine?

It's more tragic than it is embarrassing. But for people who support the communist axis of Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and South Africa. Sure. I can see how you'd be embarrassed.

quote:

---

ukraian forces have retreated again from Kursk, are they even in the Mother Land anymore.

These fellas cant hold onto anything. 350 billion dollar investment down the drain.

This is getting embarrassing at this point, can they just surrender and stop the needless deaths?

---

How's that Sudza metering station doing? Can natural gas even go through that line again? That was actually their goal initially but went way beyond it as Russians ran away

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

"11 Years Since Crimea’s Historic Return to Russia

On March 16, 2014, the people of Crimea and Sevastopol overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to reunite with Russia, with 96.77% of Crimean voters and 95.6% of Sevastopol voters supporting the decision.

This came after the Western-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014, which saw ultra-nationalist forces seize power and move to suppress Russian language rights and Russian-speaking populations across Ukraine. The new regime immediately signaled its hostility toward Crimea’s population, many of whom were veterans and descendants of those who defended the peninsula against Nazi Germany in 1941–44.

Crimeans, seeing what was unfolding in Kiev and across Ukraine, acted swiftly. They refused to recognize the coup regime and opted to rejoin Russia, a decision formalized on March 18, 2014, when President Vladimir Putin signed the treaty officially welcoming Crimea back into the Russian Federation.

The years that followed have only validated Crimea’s choice. Ukraine, under Western control, has continued its descent into extremism, glorifying Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera, banning opposition parties, and violently persecuting Russian-speaking citizens—just as Crimeans feared.

Crimea’s return was not only a democratic expression of self-determination but a decisive escape from the chaos, repression, and war that later engulfed Donbass and the rest of Ukraine. Today, 11 years later, the decision to return home to Russia stands stronger than ever."

quote:

---

If NK can send troops to Russia, I’d think France could send troops to Ukrsine. Furthermore, if Russia can send their troops to Ukraine, why can’t anyone rkse?

---

Do you understand anything about negotiating?

The side that has the upper hand dictates the terms.

If Russia says "no NATO troops" is a necessary condition for a cease fire, then there had better not be any NATO troops there, or there will be no cease fire and Russia will keep on pressing forward.

quote:

---

"11 Years Since Crimea’s Historic Return to Russia

---

How's that big naval base working out for you guys?

quote:

---

there will be no cease fire and Russia will keep on pressing forward.

---

So let me get this straight. This is your argument flow chart:

Russia invades its neighbor. Unexpectedly, the neighbor fights back rather than rolls over.

"Neighbor is a corrupt war monger slaughtering his own people. Western allies who support him are also corrupt war mongers responsible for the death of a million people, so they can launder money."

Russia rejects cease fire because it prefers to keep prosecuting the war.

"Hey man, you have to understand the nature of war. The bigger badder side makes the rules. Russia has every right to keep killing and capturing territory."

Are you really this disingenuous?

quote:

---

Agree to what it takes to get a cease fire agreement. Stop the senseless killing of people on both sides.

---

It's not my reading comprehension that's the problem here.

It's expecting the victim to agree to the terms of the bully. Just a year ago, the terms that Russia insisted on for a cease fire included the following:

Ukraine dismantles its army
Ukraine dismantles its government
Russia appoints its president
No elections

Basically in order to get a cease fire a year ago, Ukraine would have had to become Belarus.

But now the terms are suddenly better. They're squabbling over the composition of the peacekeeping force. Ukraine gets to keep its army. Ukraine gets to determine its own government. Etc.

What happened in that time? Why did Russian terms change? If you can follow that logic, then you can see why it was in Ukraine's best interest to fight.

The Ukraine soldiers who stood up to this bully actually did accomplish something.

The "senseless killing" as you called it was Putin sending meat waves of criminals and illiterate alcoholics against entrenched cluster munitions.

quote:

---

It's not my reading comprehension that's the problem here.

It's expecting the victim to agree to the terms of the bully.

---

I think you two (and many others here who share the same viewpoints on either of your sides) are talking past each other a bit.

Your outlook on this fundamentally depends on how you view Ukraine's outlook.

if you think Russia's economy and military are near collapse, yeah you'd probably think agreeing to a peace that isn't favorable to Ukraine right now is giving in to a bully.

Likewise if you think Ukraine's manpower issues are going to eventually do them in, you think its better to negotiate now and giving up more than you'd like vs the Russians taking whatever they want down the road.

The line between capitulation or "giving in to bullies" vs being a realist sometimes isn't as clear as it seems.

During the time of the Mongols, giving in to Genghis Khan was actually a pretty good deal. You were free to keep local customs and religions with relatively little interference from the Mongols as long as you paid your tributes/taxes, which weren't oppressive either. The alternative was your entire city being razed. Sometimes in the real world you just have to give in to bullies, that has been a geopolitical fact for thousands of years.

quote:

---

Who do you believe has the upper hand? Russia or Ukraine?

---

Russia has for three years.

Russia will negotiate a peace only if it’s in their best interests. If the price they are currently paying is too high then there will be a peace treaty, if it’s not then the war will continue.

It’s not complicated. The ball is in Russia’s court and they are trying to squeeze all the juice out of it that they can.