15
Putin Still Holds All the Cards in Ukraine, With No Reason to Fold
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
15 points (80.0% liked)
World News
35930 readers
621 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is what the EU should propose to Putin. Russia will withdraw from all land it seized from Ukraine after the 2022 invasion. NATO would be dissolved and replaced with a European alliance. Ukraine and Canada would be permitted to join but not the US. If Putin doesn't accept the proposal, the UK and France would send troops to Ukraine.
This is delusional. It's not a personal vendetta against the USA. Nuclear Europe fielding military in Ukraine is a red line for Russian national security. Until people understand the reality of security, you're all going to be blathering idiots.
There are two positions on security - it's either I am secure while you are not or it's we're both secure. Mutual security is the only way that peers can engage sustainably. Assymetrical security cannot be sustained by peers.
Ukraine being a non-militarized buffer between Europe and Russia is critical to Russian national security. Any arrangement where Ukraine is militarily aligned with the rest of Europe is an asymetrical security situation where Europe has security at the expense of Russia losing security.
It will never be sustainable.
Russia will either establish Ukraine as fully demilitarized with its constant oversight for the next several decades, as a result of the violation of trust that the US and EU committed, or Russia will occupy Ukraine. These are the only two options that establish mutual security and thus are the only sustainable options. Anything else is an escalation by Europe.
Ukraine has to be assured that it would be protected if Russia attacks again. Another option would be for the UN to be obligated to protect Ukraine if Russia attacks again.
Still delusional. Russia has no interest in attacking Ukraine. Learn the history. Every single Russian intervention into Ukraine has been in response to Western meddling.
You want the Ukrainian people to be safe, get the West the fuck out of it
I already said that another option would be for the UN to be obligated to protect Ukraine if Russia attacks again. It would then be unnecessary for Ukraine to be in any alliance.
The UN doesn't have sufficient military to do such a thing. They would need make an alliance to be strong enough against Russia, or it would have to the be the US. This is what we have now, it's called NATO, and the point is that NATO advanced on Russia. So sure, you can say the UN will enlist all the NATO countries to fight Russia, but only in defense, and no one in Europe would agree to that.
Why would Russia agree to that?
Russia would gain Crimea, the US military would no longer be in Europe, sanctions against Russia would be lifted, and with UK and French troops in Ukraine, Russia would not be able to conquer Ukraine.
Russia already has Crimea.
But if you mean a full withdrawal of the US from Europe, then they would probably take my. US would never agree to it though
The US would withdrawal fully if it meant the end of the war in Ukraine.
The US would never give up its vassals in Europe for a single country.
The US has already said it will start withdrawing troops from Europe and Hegseth considers China a bigger threat than Russia.
You think they’re going to close all 38 of their bases across all of Europe? That would be a big strategic break from full spectrum dominance, which is US policy, and part of the plan to contain the growth of China.
I find that incredibly implausible.
There is zero chance of Russia withdrawing from the current territories at this point. Also, why would Russia give shit if France and UK sent troops to Ukraine. Russian army is at around 1.5 million troops, while the EU could scrape up a few thousand troops at best. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html
Meanwhile, the US provides the bulk of NATO accounting for over 70% of arms and majority of the troops. Without the US, there is no NATO. Anybody who understands basic arithmetic can see how absurd this whole notion is.
Numbers alone don't count. During World War II, Germany could have conquered Russia if it didn't have to fight the powerful US in the west. That's the reason Putin might accept the plan. Without the US in Europe, Putin might think he can conquer Europe.
You think Putin believes Russia can conquer Europe? No wonder all of your analysis sounds cracked.
The US were in ww2 now?
Germany was already losing when the US entered the war
No. In December 1941 when the US entered the war after Hitler foolishly declared war on the US, Russia had simply stopped Germany outside of Moscow.
Germany was already in retreat
No. Russia regained some land but, in the summer of 1942, Germany went on the offensive.
the germans had already lost by the winter of 1941. barbarossa had no strategic path to victory except to win it all during that one summer and fall and collapse the SU. when that didnt happen, they were fucked.
they kept the war going cos they were fascists, but they had no chance of winning. they had no conception of how to achieve victory (beyond trying the same thing they did in 1941 but with a worse army, while the soviets had a better army). they had already lost, they just refused to admit it for years.
The alternate reality you inhabit is fascinating. Meanwhile, here's what a book produced by US military has to say on the subject.
The fact that you're historically illiterate explains why you have ideas that have no basis in reality. Maybe read a book for once in your life.
By 1944, Russia had fully recovered from the German invasion and was a powerful military. That was not the case in 1942. When Hitler launched his 1942 summer offensive, he had to keep units in the west to repel any invasion of France by the Western allies.
You can read the whole book, USSR was the main force fighting the nazis and did far more than all the allies combined. Your historical illiteracy is frankly an embarrassment.
I know that but the Western allies kept Hitler from concentrating his forces against Russia. Also, the West through Arctic convoys gave Russia supplies. Finally, it was the West which bombed Germany not Russia.
The reality is that US companies continued to work with the nazis well into the war. And as the book I linked explains in great detail, USSR would have won the war regardless. Your whole premise here is nonsense born out of sheer ignorance. Instead of making inane comments on here and wasting people's time, go read a book and learn about the subject you're attempting to debate.
Had not the powerful US entered World War II, Russia would have been conquered by Germany. Russia had a much greater population than Germany, but its troops weren't as well trained and in the beginning of the war its equipment weren't as good.
Correct, preventing USSR from establishing communism in Europe was the primary goal of US engagement in the war. Good on you to finally admit that USSR would have won the war, and the only role the US served was to preserve fascism in the west.
I don't understand why this was downvoted, if such a proposal had been made in 2022 during first Istanbul talks, it could have prevented another three years of meatgrinder. As during those talks Russia openly discussed getting troops back to pre-2022 border as possible option, and European alliance instead of NATO (i.e. no US troops and nukes in Europe) is also offer that is hard to ignore. So after some negotiation it might become a deal; sadly noone offered that.
Because the idea of a European alliance is nonsense. NATO IS the European alliance. And NATO's strategy for defending against Russia is a nuclear killchain with one critical position in Ukraine. What would a European alliance do? Not defend against Russia? Or defend against Russia in a different way? Would they do that while still in NATO or would they have to dismantle NATO first and then build this alliance?
It's nonsense. You can't just make a new transnational military that is capable of defending against Russia by just saying "European Alliance".
The difference is that Trump doesn't seem interested defending Europe. The EU should use this to bargain with Putin regarding Ukraine.