Gosh we wouldn't want Russia to lose any money in that they spent they spent REBUILDING what they destroyed that would just be so unjust.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
rsemmes
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,683
Well... on a long enough timeline nothing lasts forever, including Russia and Ukraine as countries. So certainly it won't last forever. But a lasting peace for a few decades would be nice.
I agree, I would be surprised if Russia was willing to give that up.
It's not the money. It's the land bridge to Crimea. On a side note the logistics corridor to Crimea isn't something Russia rebuilt, it's something they built essentially from scratch. Of course the need for this corridor stems from Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukraine likely didn't need much of that infrastructure to begin with.
For the legal basis this ukrainian document from 1992 (in English) details how it was being done, below excerpt from page 3.
Historical and current criticism of the transfer on the Russian side alleges that the above - the bolded part - did not satisfy Article 18 of the Soviet Constitution, which mandated that the "redrawing" of Republics within the Soviet Union had to be approved by (both) the republics concerned. Meaning in their opinion there would have needed to be a separate formal decree by the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, not a referal to a supposed approval within a decree issued by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
The document linked is a formal declaration of Ukraine to the UN on the matter after the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation in 1992 approved an enactment calling for a legal appraisal (in the sense of a review) of the above 1954 constitutional amendment with the explicit aim of "declaring it null and void". I'm not sure whether that appraisal was ever done in Russia subsequently.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,685
Interesting link, thanks for sharing. Not sure either, also not sure that it matters a whole lot. The current situation isn't an attempt to reverse Soviet decisions. It's a whole separate war of conquest.
No offence but read a history book sometime. Making someone submit under duress is literally the entire point of war
I tend to agree tho more surprising to me is the lack of NATO or army/weapon restrictions
As much as I highly doubt Russia would give up it's land bridge I doubt even more they will let Ukraine seriously rearm or become a bastion of Western military strength against them. And if they had to chose between the two (and it doesn't appear they can't have both) I'm guessing they would chose no land bridge over a well armed United Western/Ukrainian on there doorstep. Far as I can tell that was the threat that started this whole thing in the first place, it's not about how many kilometers that threat occupies it's about if that threat is there.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I think the point that is being missed, these are preconditions for a ceasefire, not peace accords. Peace negotiations are presumably to follow.
Edit: overall, I see probability of Russia voluntarily leaving Kherson or Zaporozhye being exactly zero (probability of being forced out by Ukraine is probably not much higher, what analysts call “very difficult”). The “swap” that Trump had referred to probably involves Kharkiv (and possibly not even the entire occupied area) and Sumy. Whatever little is held in Dnepropetrovsk and Nikolaev regions is likely in that bundle as well.
Last edited:
You are correct of course it's just surprising that NATO is on the table I guess the army size/weapons is in that regard actually something one would expect to be on the table,as there is alot of details that would need to be ironed out. The idea of how much land and critically where most likely falls into that basket aswell.
Edit also I guess the issue of legality maybe less important for a cease fire then it would be for a actual settlement. Especially if from what I can gather it's not going to be a complete cease fire perhaps just a air cease fire.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I very much doubt NATO is on the table. I don’t know if they can negotiate limitations on military though. I think as long as Russia wiggles out NATO and military cooperation with the US, they would probably be happy. Some limitations on long-range strike capabilities would probably come into play too, I would think.
Further thought on the “swap”… Perhaps, Nikolaev is not in the cards as it is a strategic little piece of land:
Further thought on the “swap”… Perhaps, Nikolaev is not in the cards as it is a strategic little piece of land:
I would be surprised if overall army size wasn't on the table and other things such as foreign troops air defence and as you said long range missiles.
None of those things are uncommon in peace settlements. It's actually quite uncommen for a settlement that leaves two large veteran army's on both sides in a protracted war for what I guess are obvious reasions
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Regardless of how this is presented, this is not a complete capitulation by Ukraine and it still gets to have an opinion, I would think. But we also don’t know the details aside from what has been reported and whether it is factual to begin with.
Also important to keep in mind:
- Ukraine is in ruins and needs to rebuild its energy infrastructure, etc;
- Currently, the entire state’s revenue is spent on the military salaries and the like;
- Their entire budget, aside from military, is fully bankrolled by the allied countries, much if it in loans, and loans from international institutions that have to be repaid;
- People will leave once the martial law is lifted, this is inventible.
Just from the above alone, there is no some grand Ukrainian army to be created once the war stops. Especially without US assistance. Ukraine cannot sustain it, simple as that. The survivability of the country is in question as well.
Also consider that even at current spending and assistance they cannot fully resist Russia. I don’t think there is a meaningful way they can actually threaten Russia post war if they aren’t in NATO and no US cooperation involved.
Edit: To continue the thought, what Zelensky and others in power likely understand is that the end of the war without security guarantees could actually be the beginning of a “peaceful” end of the state.
Also important to keep in mind:
- Ukraine is in ruins and needs to rebuild its energy infrastructure, etc;
- Currently, the entire state’s revenue is spent on the military salaries and the like;
- Their entire budget, aside from military, is fully bankrolled by the allied countries, much if it in loans, and loans from international institutions that have to be repaid;
- People will leave once the martial law is lifted, this is inventible.
Just from the above alone, there is no some grand Ukrainian army to be created once the war stops. Especially without US assistance. Ukraine cannot sustain it, simple as that. The survivability of the country is in question as well.
Also consider that even at current spending and assistance they cannot fully resist Russia. I don’t think there is a meaningful way they can actually threaten Russia post war if they aren’t in NATO and no US cooperation involved.
Edit: To continue the thought, what Zelensky and others in power likely understand is that the end of the war without security guarantees could actually be the beginning of a “peaceful” end of the state.
Last edited: