The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Feanor]

"Russia can just leave" is about who’s responsible. Russia chose to invade, and it can end the invasion by withdrawing. That says nothing about whether it will. "Russia won’t leave" is a serious practical problem, but it answers a different question. It doesn’t make Russia any less responsible, or shift that responsibility onto Ukraine for resisting. That still leaves the practical question of what would make Moscow change course.

And why is Russia’s refusal treated as fixed, while everyone else are expected to adjust? One could just as easily say Ukraine will never cede territory and Russia will have to adjust to that. Either way, one side’s position is non-negotiable and the whole burden falls on the other. Neither position is helpful. Any settlement will mean likely compromises on both sides.

Except responsibility isn't reasonably in question. There are things the west could have done to prevent it, but Russia caused it. So there's not much to discuss. On the other hand the question of how this resolves is far more interesting and impactful. And the reason why Russia can afford to be inflexible more so than Ukraine is because all the long run trends are against Ukraine, especially the population issues. Theoretically the combined support of the collective west could propel Ukraine to victory but in practice this hasn't been happening and the longer this drags on the less likely this possibility becomes.

 

[personaldesas]

Except responsibility isn't reasonably in question. There are things the west could have done to prevent it, but Russia caused it. So there's not much to discuss. On the other hand the question of how this resolves is far more interesting and impactful.

I agree. My point was simply that these are separate questions and shouldn't be conflated. Responding to the true statement that Russia could return to status quo at any point it wants with “but it won't” is equally meaningless. Those questions describe different dimensions.

 

[personaldesas]

And the reason why Russia can afford to be inflexible more so than Ukraine is because all the long run trends are against Ukraine, especially the population issues. Theoretically the combined support of the collective west could propel Ukraine to victory but in practice this hasn't been happening and the longer this drags on the less likely this possibility becomes.

I don’t see either side winning decisively on the battlefield any time soon, and all of this also matters in a potential settlement.

On whose terms depends on what each side is willing and able to endure. The stakes differ. Ukraine is fighting for its territory and its survival as an independent state. Russia can fail to achieve its war aims and still face nothing like that. So the cost each side is willing to pay differs too.

Each side wants the other to believe it is willing to keep this up longer. Russia may or may not be as inflexible as it looks. Either way, the posture helps it. If the West believes Russia will keep going no matter the cost, backing Ukraine feels like a waste. Pushing Kyiv to accept Russia’s terms starts to look sensible. That’s also why Russia runs information campaigns to erode Western support. Western leaders make the same move from the other side when they promise to back Ukraine "for as long as it takes". Messaging to Russia it won’t budge, this will cost RUssia, so it might as well negotiate.

In the end, it’s all about negotiating position. Western support doesn’t have to win Ukraine the war to matter. It matters to be in a better negotiation position. That’s why it’s nonsense when people say Russia won’t budge, so the West should not help Ukraine and leave it for dead.

 

[deyhere]

Only that the collapse of Ukraine will make "negotiating" irrelevant.
I cannot see the collapse of Russia, neither in 2028 nor in 2029.

even when it's clear Ukraine is losing land on a daily basis all over the battle field and Ukraine and it's backers beg for cease fires almost every week, the fairy tale world still paints a picture of a stalemate. then you hear things like "Russia can just end this war by leaving Ukraine", how about if NATO ends the war and leaves Ukraine?

 

[rsemmes]

Russia doesn’t need to face collapse for a negotiated settlement to become preferable to continuing the war. Neither does Ukraine.

Russia will not collapse. That is not an opinion, that is NATO, (the Dutch intelligence report and there was another one some time ago), Russia will get away with this war and will be ready for a war against NATO in 2030; swerve, is NATO arguing for Russia?
Ukraine needs $110bn for 2027, Ukraine does not know how much money will get in 2027; "for as long as necessary" is a promise, not a commitment. There is not even a mention of money for 2028 nor for 2029, but there is a possible Ukrainian collapse in 2027. Vivendi: "By 2027 or early 2028, I predict Russia's collapse within 2 years... Russia may collapse already in 2026." It is not happening, NATO dixit.
Ukraine's situation was better in 2023 than in 2026, it will be worse in 2027 and worse again in 2028; that is a logical progression. Ukraine may need $130bn in 2028 and $200bn in 2030, how much money has been promised?
The sinews of war are infinite money. It is not about the front line, but about the collapse of the country. I don't "predict" that Ukraine will have no negotiating position in 2028, but it is better for Ukraine to reach an agreement in 2026 than in 2027; and better still than in 2028. We have already seen that logical, and factual, progression.

Russian situation will be worse in 2027 and worse again in 2028 but, "a negotiated settlement to become preferable to continuing the war"? I would say it is preferable, even if costlier, to dictate terms than to negotiate terms.
Ukraine is actually facing collapse, I wouldn't use preferable, I would use necessary.

 

[personaldesas]

Russia will not collapse.

Agreed. I never said it would. My point was that it doesn’t need to.