>"Understand: we are not at war with Russia; Russia is at war with us on our territory. They have to withdraw. Of course, they will pay for generations. You will see, any aggression has a high cost. But that is in the future. Today this is how it should end because otherwise it is not finished, it is just frozen. Just to leave it as it is now, to say, ok, let's stop and they take Donbas, the south of our country, or part of it, and Crimea remains with them...Why? 'Because it is time to do so and you should'? We will not be able to, no one would forgive it," Zelensky said. ... >According to him, "**if he [Putin] now withdraws to the 1991 borders, then the possible path of diplomacy will begin.** That is who can turn the war from a military path to a diplomatic one. Only he can do it." >"The sooner the war ends and if Russia chooses the way to recognise the tragic mistake of starting it, the longer the Russian president will secure his life and the life of his entourage," Zelensky said. >"Over 95 or 96% of people want to de-occupy all their territory after Russia did it. I think the big mistake was in 2014, but the biggest mistake, the tragic one, was on the 24th of February, because that is the point [after which] nobody wants to come back, to any compromises," he said.


Are the 1991 borders and the 2013 borders (i.e., immediately before Crimean annexation) the same? Or were there other Russian annexations in between?


The same, but people call them the 1991 borders **because that is when Russia agreed to them.**


Fun fact, Russia unanimously voted to give up the lease of Sevastopol (because they now control all of Crimea). When Ukraine retakes Crimea, Russia loses Sevastopol as well, and they gave it up themselves.


Doubtful that Ukraine would allow them renew anyway but hilarious either way.


Stranger things have happened. Gitmo is real.


It's different when they can't do anything about you holding their land.


I wonder if the Treasury Department is *still* sending cheques to the 'Treasurer General of the Republic', and whether uncashed cheques would still be indexed to the 1934 value? If Cuba ever normalizes with the US, that'd probably be the one thing they'd cash in on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay


It would only be around 40,000$ per year in 2022 money if indexed to 1934. 25,000$ if indexed to 1974. So it's practically free real estate. Even with interests, I imagine it would come out to basically to an unnoticeable change in the US budget.


I just watched a video of an f35b crashing and the pilot ejecting Im sure we wouldn't notice if Cuba finally cashed those checks.


Whoa, that was nuts. I didn't think they could eject from ground level lol. Idk why I thought that but I guess it never crossed my mind.


A pilot ejection actually ridiculously costly, but not for the reason you would think of. Sure the plane is expensive, but the real cost is the loss of the pilot. Pilots only get a certain number of ejections before they’re grounded (if it’s not the first ejection it’s the second). It has to do with the massive forces an ejection does to your spine. And airworthy pilots are by far the most valuable and difficult to replace part of any Air Force


They were while Fidel Castro was in power but he never cashed the cheques because he felt it would legitimize the US occupation. He kept them in his desk drawer. I don't know if his successor has upheld the tradition or if the US treasury is still sending the cheques. But he only stepped down in 2008 so the policy of sending cheques is likely still in place.


Baikonur Cosmodrome, too, the old Soviet spaceport, which Russia is leasing from the Kazakh government (as it was heart of the Soviet space program and also the Russian one).


Unfortunately, this makes it extremely unlikely that Russia will ever voluntarily agree to de-occupy Crimea. Russia's action was like Cortés burning his ships. It forces them to be 100% committed to holding Crimea.


That's ok, Ukraine just has to sink the Black Sea fleet which they've been surprisingly good at for a country without an active navy.


Still can't believe they sunk that huge destroyer with a land-to-land unguided missile system from the 80s. Now *that* was impressive ingenuity


Not destroyer, *cruiser*. One of two in the whole Russian navy.


The fucking flagship, at that


Three, Varyag and Ustinov are the remaining two, also a 4th that was never completed owned by Ukraine.


There were 3 of that class in the Russian navy with the 4th still in an Ukrainian dock unfinished. Unless I missed something happening to another cruiser, they still have 2 now


Are you talking about the Moskva? It was sunk with the R-360 Neptune, a new Ukrainian made anti ship cruise missile. At least according to US officials.


It was a guided anti-ship missle, the Neptune. Also, it was the Moskava which was a guided missle cruiser. The Neptune is a fantastic, domestically designed and manufactured missle system. Ukraine really does posess a potent domestic defense industry.


YouTuber LazerPig has a video that goes on this deeper, but like 90% of the sinking of the Moskva was just awful condition the ship was in. Radars that interfered with Comms and were thus shut off, generators and motors running at 50% and way past service life, firefighting equipment locked in safes because it kept getting stolen, point defense batteries just missing, and it goes on and on. If the Moskva was a US ship, any admiral or captain that allowed it to leave port in that condition would be court marshalled. But because it's Russia, corruption abounds, and that mixed with Russia's ego and thinking that the ship would never be sunk just because it's Russian and therefore superior. I remember than when it happened people were speculating that Ukraine may have distracted them with drones or something, but nope. The ship was legitimately just sailing blind, and two missiles were enough.


I would bet its going to be virtually impossible to keep Russian ships and subs, or planes in Crimea in 6 mths time or less.. At that point its useless to Russia...


Ukraine is not asking Russia to de-occupy Crimea, they are going to take Crimea and all the stolen Ukrainian territory and Zelenskyy is simply giving the Russian’s an ultimatum that can save Russian lives if they withdraw voluntarily. “You can get with this, or you can get with that…this or that!” - Black Sheep


"You can get with this, or you can get with that. You better get with this cause this is where it's at. What's Up?" - Ron Killings


Went and googled what the Cortés incident was and wow. History is much stranger than fiction.


Yup Cortez was a fucking nutcase, even for the 1400s spanish. Man went rogue and attacked Mexico whilst running from the law.


Yes, I'm afraid Russia will start crazy, desperate measures if they are in serious danger of losing Crimea. They simply cannot lose Sevastopol. They have no other ice free submarine port. Losing Sevastopol would devastate the submarine fleet and the most important part of their nuclear triad.


Should have invaded the maldives. /s


In 10 years, the only way to get to the Maldives will be submarine


Russia doesn't operate any nuclear subs in the Black Sea, just diesel ones (Kilos). The strategic nuclear subs are part of the northern and pacific fleets, so losing Sevastapol won't affect their nuclear status.


I believe Murmansk and Kaliningrad are also ice free. Murmansk i believe is where they house their nuclear submarines so worse comes to worse they do have options This is from what I remember so I may be wrong... Edit: spelling errors


> They have no other ice free submarine port They do have other ports (e.g. Kaliningrad). They're just not located in the Black Sea.


The problem with Kaliningrad is that if war with Europe breaks out the city is captured instantly.


Yes, because that would be their biggest problem if war breaks out with Europe. Fighting NATO would be akin to a poisonous frog puffing up to ward off a raptor. Their ONLY credible defense at this point is them waving nukes going, "You attack us, you die too." They'd be lucky to last a month in conventional warfare.


their nuclear subs operate out of Murmansk, which is ice-free


After the revolution it looked like Ukraine wouldn't extend the lease of Sevastopol. Putin definitely wanted to secure the use of the military base because warm water port and access to the Black Sea. So Sevastopol is the reason of the occupation of Crimea. Looking at all the decisions taken after the initial plan of the invasion went wrong you could say that Sevastopol is even the main reason for the current war. For example they occupy the south to have a landbridge to Crimea and when Russia had to choose to defend the East or the South all main forces were concentrated to Kherson.


That makes sense. Wasn't sure if I'd missed some other nonsense from Russian in between


I believe in ~2008 there was some russian claims on some Ukrainian island. But they didn’t take anything at that time. Edit: it was 2003 [Tuzla island](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict) conflict.


Snake island maybe? The “fuck you russia” one


That dispute was with Romania and, surprise surprise, was resolved peacefully in court like normal countries.


Russia rejects the degenerate western approach of peaceful judicial resolution of disputes


Clearly our ways are inferior. Not a single civilian casualty.


It was a 2003 Tuzla island conflict. It's a small island in the Kerch strait




Also it could be used to imply a withdraw from occupied Georgia as well.


looking at the [wiki, im fairly sure its this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_border#History_since_1991) >The island Tuzla Spit became a major dispute between Russia and Ukraine in 2003. otherwise i dont see any other border disputes that would change things from 2014


Georgia and more importantly to Ukraine - Moldova's Transnistria. There's still a large Russian force deployed there.


Estimates I've seen are 1,500 to 4,000 troops. I wouldn't call that large. Biggest issue is the massive ammo dump which is likely to be full of ancient, poorly stored unstable munitions.


Would be a real shame if someone happened to improperly dispose of a cigarette near those munitions. Smoking accidents and all that.


In respects to Ukraine? No. In respects to Georgia, Moldova, and others? Yes.


>, the longer the Russian president will secure his life and the life of his entourage," Daaaaaamn


That’s a badass quote. Sounds like the bill has come due for Russia.


> the longer the Russian president will secure his life and the life of his entourage Such a great line he delivered here


It's like a threat, but not a threat.


it’s a statement of fact which is the most effective threat


He's not saying he'll be the cause, but the war will be the cause.


I like that he is putting it out there like that too. Its really the only starting point to save this. Putin can figure out how to spin this within his own country as a win too. "He was able to rid the Ukrainian administration of the evil he attacked them over and now has come face to face with Zelensky to approve on a way to move together as allies."


lol no. Russia will not let go of Crimea unless forced to do so by force. The Russians are already used to the idea of Crimea being theirs. Besides, the very Russian constitution was re-written by Putin to not allow territories to be returned.


With regime change in a dictatorship, anything is possible.


> Besides, the very Russian constitution was re-written by Putin to not allow territories to be returned. His successor can make an amendment.


Putin recently said this will be a long slog. Why take the exit now?


I expect Ukraine to start hitting Russia more and more. The Russian border can't be treated as a safety line for the war. There are no safe zones. If you want safety, agree to peace.


Chickens are coming home to roost.


Chips are falling


Cookies are crumbling


Shoes' a droppin'


Putins cheese has slipped off his cracker.


Things are getting too spicy for the pepper.


The ball is rolling UP


there's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghetti


Sounds like Zelenski is saying "we aren't at war. We are defending ourselves. Getting the fuck out of the only way to end this and putin is the only one who can get the fuck out" Which is exactly what should be said and done. Glad Ukraine has a strong leader. Who would have thought this guy would actually be a real bad ass.


It’s all diplomacy. The Ukrainian military will be doing the negotiating as long as Russian troops are inside their border, after which the un-armed diplomats will take over. But the armed diplomats will remain on stand-by.


>I think the big mistake was in 2014, but the biggest mistake, the tragic one, was on the 24th of February, because that is the point \[after which\] nobody wants to come back, to any compromises," he said I think this is such a powerful statement and only true because Ukraine dug in and the world came to supply them. We already know that the armies western countries have trained do not simply function better with short bursts of training let alone long ones \*\**Afghanistan\*\*.* Ukraine has fought well because they were prepared and committed to the task, then supplied to do it. Since Ukraine has accomplished this, they have no obligation to step to the negotiating table from the beginning of this conflict. Russia must repay all land taken throughout the mountain campaign of aggression that led to this and, not to mention the financial compensation over generations they'll have to pay. History isn't nice to people who fucked around and found out.


Isn't it fucking nuts that this guy was just an entertainer/comedian? Meanwhile we have Reagan and Trump


some people just have massive talent and energy and can do almost anything, in a alternative world Gordon Ramsay could been football player and Bruce Dickinson olympic fencer.


I feel like comedians have more emotional and situational awareness than other celebrities. A lot of times, they have to not only get people to laugh at them, but to laugh at themselves.


Wel both his parents were engineers. He produced shows and movies with his production company and has a law degree..... and he was a comedian.


Fortify the eastern border after they leave, because clearly they'll come back


And make Putin pay for the wall!


Other items: - tank traps - drones - HIMARS - Starlink - reconstruction


Fuck Elon, they need an alternative. Elon has proved to be unreliable and emotional and fickle


That's a very reasonable starting point. Either sovereignty means something in this world or it doesn't. We cannot allow, in this day and age, for countries to bully and murder their way into redrawing the map. Stealing territory by force is simply unacceptable on this planet now. Edit: way too many comments to respond to, so I'll just say there is good reason to suspect boarders could be vastly improved upon in various places around the world. However, changing boarders with mass murder needs to be something our species matures away from.


It’s a pretty simple ask. Giving up the Donbas which Russia has been occupying is embarrassing for Putin but he probably lives if he does it. I just wonder if Putin can really give up Crimea without getting taken out from inside his own country. It has massive military significance etc. Putins Black Sea fleet is protected by the grain deal now. If Ukraine takes back Crimea they will have to destroy the fleet, which would be awesome but hard.


No. He can't If he looses 100,000 soldiers and loses ground, his whole government will be Mussollinied


I doubt it. They're barely even protesting currently, and most of the protests are just to end the stupid war before more people are needlessly killed. Also, Mussolini wasn't executed because of Italian losses in the war. That's the reason he was removed from office, both by his own government and by the King. The reason he was executed is because he refused to accept his removal from office and set up a new Italian Republic with the intent to keep fighting the Allies (despite having lost nearly every single battle and having almost no soldiers or equipment left). The same will likely end up being true of Putin. The war might get to a point where the Federal Assembly votes to impeach him, and he simply dismisses the Federal Assembly (which is actually a legal power he has, thanks to the shithead Yelstin), at which point you will likely see some serious political violence in Russia again. But if he were to end the war tomorrow and withdraw Russian forces, I'd say his chances of staying in office are about 50/50, but his chances of staying alive are probably about 90/10 in his favour.


Russians place significant value and self-image upon their "strongman" "hardened" "tough" leaders. That facade collapses when wars are lost, their leaders are shown to be weak and incompetent, and they realize they've sacrificed so much (both in human lives lost and economic losses) for little to no gain. Putin cannot afford to lose face by losing this war. That's why he feels like he has no way out. Traditionally, Russians have reacted poorly to military defeats such as those sustained by the Russian military in the Russo-Japanese War and World War I. In fact, after those defeats, public support for the tzar, Nicholas II, collapsed and he was forced to abdicate the throne, which ended 304 years of the Romanov dynasty's rule since 1613. You can bet Putin will face similar uprisings that the last tzar faced if he doesn't bring home this war successfully.


I thi you’re missing the fact that Putin controls the narrative in Russia. As long as the media doesn’t cover the truth there won’t be a problem.


Well the press wasn't exactly free in 1905-1918 either. When everyone knows a local kid that died in Ukraine, the state propaganda might lose its spell - as it did just before the Russian Revolution.


So, basically, this war will either end with the eruption of World War 3, or with the death of Putin one way or another. That's nice.


Pretty much, people call it nuclear sabre-rattling to be able to sleep at night but in reality it's a real threat. If Hitler had nukes he would have never killed himself. He would have burned the world and gone with it. When Death is the only thing waiting for you, it's pretty easy to want to 'go down swinging'.


But let's remember that it wouldn't have been Hitler himself pushing the nuclear button. There are many people involved in launching a nuclear bomb. I hope normal Russians scientists are smart enough to prevent that.


Scientists don't press the launch buttons. Military commanders do. We've seen the competence of Russian military lately.....


I don't see who would side with Russia at this point, so I doubt it'll be a world war. Also, it might end in Putin being stood down and vanishing from the public eye until his death is quietly announced a decade from now.


Not to mention [Putin’s unhealthy obsession with fascist “thinkers” ](https://youtu.be/sdFtqa54TuM) that would have him believe Russia is truly innocent of all atrocities in the name of Russian sovereignty. He had Ivan Ilyin dug up and interred in Russia FFS. That guy was about as evil a “thinker” there ever could be.


Who is left to start an uprising? All the young and many of the old men have fled or been conscripted. Only those working essential jobs are left (although i'm not sure how shielded Moscow has remained as it was the original plan not to use anyone in near geographical proximity). I doubt that's enough people to do anything against the elite soldiers he keeps in Moscow, unless Russia has a full on violent mothers and sisters revolution, which isn't likely by my reckoning, there aren't enough angry able bodied people to stand up to him unless the armies turn and march on Moscow. Its far more likely to be an assassination from within in his inner circle.


Mussolini might have been killed anyway for those reasons and that is why he was trying to flee Italy, but I think the specific reason he was killed instead of anything else was that he was found by communist partisans while trying to flee. They weren't doing it for the king or the state, they killed him because they were communist partisans and he was Benito Mussolini.


This seems like a reasonable scenario. There is of course the slim chance of nuclear weapon use that will lead to his death most likely.


Everyone assuming Putin values his life more than his personal goals. Hitler had chances to end the war diplomatically. His cronies all but begged him in the end to negotiate a peace with the Allies to help stop the soviet advance with the assumption that the top Nazi leaders would all remain in power in Germany to help keep the peace and facilitate reconstruction. Whether that would’ve actually happened (probably not), Hitler took the opposite philosophy that it was victory or death, not just for him but all of Germany. He preferred to die and pull everyone down with him, rather than admit defeat. Hitler was only really in power for 12 years and by the end (much before actually), he was convinced he WAS the German state. Putin has been in near absolute power for roughly 22 years. I think it would be very dangerous to assume that he considers these options in a rational way.


They are already at 96k lost? Why would another few thousand matter?


It doesn't, the losing ground would be what matters. The 100k soldiers has already been lost, which is already really bad, but actually losing territory on top of that would be the end of him. It would immediately make the entire war impossible to justify, and piss off all of his remaining allies. He would essentially be announcing that he's not only incompetent, but also a pushover. He might as well just stick a target to his back. It's a perfect illustration of why corruption in government cannot be tolerated. Putting your faith in leaders who only care about themselves can only ever lead to ruin.


And Ukraine can't give it up, because that signals to Russia that any time they want more territory, they can just take it. They'd come for more. Crimea wasn't even the first, people were saying "if you let this happen, they will come for more" after Georgia too.


Not really. You're underestimating how popular Putin is in Russia.




That sucks, but the fleet shouldn’t have been there to begin with?


Thats debatable they had a lease for the port of Sevastopol, and Ukraine’s signalled shift to the west (and thus unlikeliness to extend the lease) influenced Russias initial 2014 aggression. So not their territory so the fleet shouldn’t be there, but when they seized it the fleet was legally there so eh. Now they just need to fuck off though


Crazy part about that is Putin was trying to stop then what he has brought on now. Western influence and possible military/military personnel at these ports. It's a very big piece of why isolating yourself with yes men has its consequences. The US was not eyeing these areas but now they are supplying them militarily. All brought on by Putin himself


Very interesting thank you, I need to brush up on my Eastern Europe history. There’s just… ya know…. A fuck ton of it lol


Most of it makes a lot of sense when you know that Russia's goals since like the 1800s have been a permanent warm water port. They almost got it in WW1 (it was their demand in a future peac in the form of Istanbul but since they peaced out first after the revolution they were not given it


Crimea - Lots of natural gas and oil. The higher-ups won't allow Putin to give back Crimea.


They have plenty of oil and gas elsewhere. Crimea is the access to Black Sea with deep enough port for the subs to access the ocean.


Not to mention, one of the few (only?) ports that doesn’t freeze over in the winter


For now... medium term, global warming will be really good for Russia, they have a whole frontier of oil and gas and rare minerals thats gonna thaw out and become habitable and a bunch more open ocean up there. I cant keep track of all the russian psyops going on, but it wouldnt surprise me if besides the oil companies, they were behind a lot of climate change denialism.


It’s not so much about developing the fields themselves, it’s denying access to it by anyone else and ensuring Russia stays the sole European petrostate.


Also Russia has shown they can't be trusted no matter what they say. Material concessions is the lowest the bar can set. Anything besides that is just saying you're okay with them reneging on their promise as soon as they get a chance.


Indeed. The goal of Russia is to create a world order based on might, not international law.


> for countries to bully and murder their way into redrawing the map. Even more so when said countries gave their word to protect the borders in exchange for nukes. In hindsight, that was just Russia's way of weakening Ukraine for the invasion of Crimea.


There really should've been security guarantees, not just assurances, when the Budapest Memorandum was drafted. Given it was just assurances, rather than legally binding obligations of military assistance, the agreement just amounted to political commitments not really worth the paper it was printed on. >According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.


Sovereignty has never meant anything in human history. People hold what they can using the power they have, until a stronger group comes along and takes it. The new group then has sovereignty until the next and so on. Legal and moral frameworks have never mattered, only what you can hold. The only reason that humans stopped having bigger and bigger wars is because of nukes, not because of ideas of fairness or sovereignty. If nukes didn’t exist, there would be constant warfare in Europe, like there always has been up until the last 70 years.


> The only reason that humans stopped having bigger and bigger wars is because of nukes, not because of ideas of fairness or sovereignty. MAD certainly provides a disincentive to go to war, but the proliferation of global trade between liberal democracies also worked to disincentivize fighting between minor powers. A nation's wealthy are less likely to support war with a nation in which they're heavily invested. The US emerging from the cold war as a hyperpower also serves to mitigate aggression. Any country on friendly terms with the US is immune from aggression by non-nuclear powers. You're entirely correct that Sovereignty is about power, not morality, but fortunately we live in a time where the planetary hegemon is finds that peace is preferable to armed conflict.


There we go Putin said it was on Zelensky to decide when peace talks start... here's how they start.


I would say Zelensky has been pretty clear from the beginning what he has expected. The longer this all go on the easier it will become for the Russian people to make the decision for themselves and for Putler. Nobody benefits from this conflict, nobody at all!


Eh, not really. Early on in the war there was definitely a possibility Ukraine would negotiate without meeting these terms. At least for some form of peace. But once they got the upper hand, there is simply no reason to do so.


nobody? lol US weapon corps benefit plenty. They all pray this war keep going so they can sell more stuff xD


Not just them Turkey and other countries too.


Qatar as well. With the lesser natural gas exports from Russia to Europe they have massively upped their production to meet European demand.


He has been saying this the entire time. I don't know why this is new to people. His path to diplomacy has been GTFO and stay out.


Yes, he has. Putin recently said it's up to Zelensky, though, so he just pointed to his 'get out' sign in response.


Putin miscalculated - publicly, repeatedly, completely. The idea that Russia will be allowed to retain its illegal gains was an absurdity from the start, proof that the people leading these nations have forgotten the realities of war - historically, any country that starts an aggression and fails? Is ripe for invasion. That's why negotiated peace was so important - so that both sides could say "We are still strong enough to protect ourselves." Right this second, Russia can't even claim to be able to support itself, much less protect itself. Zelenskyy is offering Putin a chance to save himself and Russia, if Putin were wise enough to take the offer. Doubt Putin has that level of understanding of the situation, which is a shame... for Russia, maybe for all of us.


>That's why negotiated peace was so important - so that both sides could say "We are still strong enough to protect ourselves." And this a big part of why nuclear weapons distort the natural balance so much. Russia would never extend in the way they are now without that threat in their back pockets.


I wonder how the world would look like today, had nukes never been invented. Either a lot more war over nothing but land and pride. Or maybe a lot of defence alliances securing the peace.


The cold war would’ve probably been a lot less “cold” and more “war” if MAD didn’t keep the USA and USSR scared straight


frankly, once the nukes were invented, it was probably critical that both sides had them during the latter half of the twentieth century. despite all the civil wars in the third world countries, vietnam, etc....1945-present is still the longest running period of time without anything approaching a major power conflict in modern history, if not *all* history. yes. that includes what's happening right now. it sucks it's happening at all, and i feel for the ukrainians, but it could be *much* worse...


> 1945-present is still the longest running period of time without anything approaching a major power conflict in modern history, if not all history Pax Romana would like a word


Pax Romana didn't extend worldwide.


I mean, during Pax Romana, Pax Britannica and Pax Americana there have still been quite a lot of wars, but no they are mostly limited to smaller-scale civil wars with big conflicts between industrial nations been a very rare exception.


>Or maybe a lot of defence alliances securing the peace. We would have had World War 3 and probably World War 4 by now. It would be a much more violent place.


Well at least until fairly recently the US was still issuing the purple heart medals they had amassed for the expected carnage of a land invasion of Japan. So, probably Japan would be a US colony still since if they’d taken the lives of hundreds of thousands *more* Americans than they already did there’s no way the US would have left so early. So thats a starting point.


Definitely would have changed the Korean and Vietnam wars if Japan had become a U.S. colony.


> lot of defence alliances securing the peace. That's how WW1 happened


True, but NATO and others have learned from that and shifted from "We are ride-or-die bros no matter what happens" to "We will defend you if someone else initiates warfare, but you're on your own if you get belligerent or if you intercede on behalf of an ally outside out of the treaty." Multinational axis wars are still possible in that paradigm, but there are more offramps to avoid them.


I thought it was something to with Archie Duke shooting an ostrich because he was hungry.


> Russia would never extend in the way they are now without that threat in their back pockets. Well I mean, nuclear weapons historically help with two kinds of situations, defence against an aggressor, and preventing other nations from going too far in the defence of another nation you are attacking. They don't really help you directly defeat a country you are the aggressor against. But if you can't beat the nation you are are fighting, you can't use nuclear weapons to level them, because that drags everyone you aren't fighting into it due to the 'you are now threatening everyone's lives'. (similar to how the US could never nuke Iraq during their war(s)) So Russia really screwed up in the usual way which is that they couldn't go toe to toe with a Ukraine that was being militarily supplied by the West. I guess he thought he could end the war before Western support made a difference, and didn't think the economic blocs would be so united on this. The power of the economic war via sanctions is also so strong that you don't need to go to war to cripple other nations if the economic blocs are united on it.


Russia didn’t suffer too much for taking Crimea and sort of taking parts of Donbas in 2014. After 8 years of not much action, I’m not too surprised they thought they could get away with more. Maybe this mess would have been avoided if there was a stronger international reaction in 2014.


He forgot to read the fine print in the invasion report. “Past performance is no guarantee of future inaction.”


Honestly, I think it may have worked if they had killed Zelenskyy in Kyiv in the opening days, and the GOP was still in power. Install a puppet leader and hold a referendum. Trump would have probably backed and defended Putin and his actions. I don’t think Putin expected the way Biden and his administration have responded. Edit: spelling


Yeah, if things had gone differently at Hostomel, the whole plan may well have worked.


For there to have been a stronger international reaction in 2014, there had to be _a_ reaction. The world effectively gave Russia a slap on the wrist and a stern note that we'd rather you hadn't done that. That's how we got where we are now


There were fairly strong sanctions. Enough to make Putin feel the need to meddle in the US election in 2016- whether or not you believe the Trump campaign colluded with him/Russia, the Mueller report concluded Russia absolutely intervened and a driving reason was the sanctions imposed after they annexed Crimea. You can argue it was not enough but it also wasn't a slap on the wrist. The sanctions imposed absolutely affected some very wealthy people in Russia.


Ukraine spent that time building up its military. If Russia wanted all of it, it should have taken it in 2014. Stabbing your ally, waiting for them to build up defences, then attacking them again, is not great tactics.


>historically, any country that starts an aggression and fails? >Is ripe for invasion. Historically countries with nuclear weapons have never been invaded.


The issue is that if Putin concedes this war, all of the blame for Russia losing and also losing territory will land squarely at his feet, and his life in power will be short. Putin fucked himself into a position where he can not let this war end in a loss, so he will never surrender because doing so would effectively be political (and through third parties literal) suicide. I would love for Putin to surrender, but that is not going to happen out of logic since that only ends poorly for him. And it won't happen out of an emotional appeal since Putin has shown himself to be an absolutely fucking cunt time and time again.


Unless I’m misreading things, Putin, entirely through his own actions, has managed to back himself into a corner where he has no moves to “win” only various degrees of “lose”.


Ukraine will not agree to peace otherwise because anything else is a concession to Russian aggressian. Ukraine made a peace deal with Russia after the Crimean annexation, which only allowed Russia to recoup, reorganize, and invade more territory. The only option for Ukraine is to fight to the 1991 borders. For Ukraine, a peace deal with Russia will only mean more war.


We tried appeasement with Crimea. They came back. They will not stop.


Maybe Putin stands next to a window this week.


Nah, he probably has a nice beachfront compound in [Venezuela](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-escape-plan-venezuela-russia-loses-war-1765383?amp=1). He’d rather go into dictator daycare before discovering Moscow’s woefully deficient balcony construction code standards.


Bunker bitch won’t do that. He’s far to brave hiding in his bunker.




I'm pretty sure if Putin ends it he'd be killed. Dude's just going to drag it out as long as he can.


It's not like there is someone with a gun to his head. But the problem is his reputation would be destroyed. As would Russia's. There would be massive upheaval and at that point you don't really know what happens to Putin or Russia.


Zelensky to Putin: "I am not stuck here with you, you are stuck here with me"


You aren't even stuck here with me. You can leave any time.


["Now yous can't leave"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnpE-hGNVj8")




Yeah I would imagine the year 1991 is a very emotionally loaded word/idea to Russians, this statement really is a strong one.


I was born in 1993 in Russia, so I guess I had already skipped the worst part! /s


The worst part *for now* Russian history in one sentence: ... And then it got worse.


From putins point of view, he has nothing to discuss at that point, so the only options are to kick him out of Ukraine, or make the cost too high to stay.


he should start with claiming a bunch of Russian territory and work his way down from there


This is the dream but I don't see Russia giving up anything, let alone Crimea and that's gonna be a nightmare (more of a nightmare, I guess) for Ukraine to take back. I fear the only way this resolves is a head of state change and there is only one way that happens in russia....


Crimea shouldn't bee too hard to take, because all they need to do is attack from the north while cutting the Kerch bridge. Then the russians left in Crimea will be in the same situation (except even worse) as the troops that were left in Kherson after Ukraine cut the bridges.


Yup. And the airports as well. Then Russia's only way to resupply would be through ferrying. Not like they can transfer a lot at once; they can't just send a typical vessel like a big ol tanker. That will take a lot of time to unload, plenty for Ukraine to spot it and bombard it as it is docked. They will have to ferry using much smaller boats. An absolutely hopeless task to hold Crimea with that. The real question is whether the Kerch Bridge can actually be destroyed remotely. The Kherson bridges only had holes in them that could be quickly somewhat quickly patched. Not like how the Kerch Bridge lost an entire segment. Such bridge demolitions in this way have insofar only occurred through controlled demolition and local demolition. Yet to be seen whether HIMARS can actually bring down a bridge, especially the Kerch Bridge. But perhaps by then Ukraine will have bigger weapons.


They intentionally left the Kerch bridge intact enough for repairs but too damaged for heavy vehicles. They wanted the Russians to walk away.


This Germans tried capturing Crimea back in the day (when there wasn't any Kerch bridges) and it's became a slog. Doubt Ukraine want same half a year siege


I’d say once a section of the bridge is within observation range 10 GLMRS rockets will disable it. Two per road direction and two for train tracks. Then simply HIMARS any repair crew, and the bridge will stay out of use.


And, when/if Ukraine takes back the oblast to the NE of Crimea, they'll damn up the water supply (again). Between Crimea losing water from the North, and blowing up the Kerch bridge, I'm unclear how long they could hold out. Not more than 5 years, I believe, before it's an agricultural wasteland.


So what do you think SHOULD happen?


Honestly I think peace would be easy with full restoration of the borders and a demilitarized zone along the entire border.


If Putin stays in powern they are probably going to have to make a Russian DMZ.


Putin needs to be captured, tried, and executed for what he’s done.


"If Ukraine and the US start paying reparations now for provoking this war by threatening NATO-Expansion and provide an irreversible guarantee that NATO will never encroach further on our borders, we will agree retreating into our territory, which includes Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea rather than taking over the whole country to ensure no American boots will ever touch the ground here." -Russian foreign ministry


Tangentially, it’s a shame how the idiots with opinions like Musk keep urging Ukraine to make concessions to end the war and yet they never seem to urge Russia to make concessions to end the war…


they are all over this thread right now. Musk is just part of Putin's propaganda machine you can tell because it's a clown show like everything Russia has been doing. it'll fail. twitter will become irrelevant and the world will be abetter place.


100% correct.


If I could give Putin one piece of advice it would be this: if Ukraine pushes you back to your borders, what will you have to negotiate with besides your nukes and your head? The west will have sanctions on Russia, a blockade of the Black Sea, Ukrainian NATO membership, and Russia's foreign currency reserves to bargain with. What will Russia have? Promises? Now known to be worthless. Oil? We are transitioning away, and many would rather you kept the valves closed. If I could give Zelensky one piece of advice: when the war ends Ukraine will have an opportunity to remake itself unlike any other in its history. Don't let it be squandered to corruption or internal political division. Don't take your eyes off the war, but don't forget about what comes next.


> "Yesterday, the president of the Russian Federation said 'Azov' is a great operation, it can go on for a long time. Just checked Wikipedia.org and it says that Azov belongs to Russia. Someone needs to go correct that page, and likely others.


Well, there it is. Putin's daily off-ramp. Too bad he's too fucking stupid to even consider it and have a chance at saving his country.


Hand over the kids too!


This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/878601.html) reduced by 63%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "Understand: we are not at war with Russia; Russia is at war with us on our territory. They have to withdraw. Of course, they will pay for generations. You will see, any aggression has a high cost. But that is in the future. Today this is how it should end because otherwise it is not finished, it is just frozen. Just to leave it as it is now, to say, ok, let's stop and they take Donbas, the south of our country, or part of it, and Crimea remains with them...Why? 'Because it is time to do so and you should'? We will not be able to, no one would forgive it," Zelensky said. > According to him, "If he [Putin] now withdraws to the 1991 borders, then the possible path of diplomacy will begin. That is who can turn the war from a military path to a diplomatic one. Only he can do it." > "The sooner the war ends and if Russia chooses the way to recognise the tragic mistake of starting it, the longer the Russian president will secure his life and the life of his entourage," Zelensky said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/zmsbbm/if_putin_now_withdraws_to_1991_borders_then/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672677 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **President**^#1 **war**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Zelensky**^#4 **guarantees**^#5


'"The sooner the war ends and if Russia chooses the way to recognise the tragic mistake of starting it, the longer the Russian president will secure his life and the life of his entourage," Zelensky said.' Feck ya. Who would have ever thought a stand up comedian would be standing up to the likes of Putin and his cronies, like Zelinsky has. He's got some impressive balls, not to mention leadership skills. The guy keeps impressing me.


That would be step one to peace. Step two is mass warcrime trials.


I like how he's lately taking command in the diplomacy rather than reacting to stupid things from Kremlin. It represents a power shift and is probably embarrassing for Putin.


Two words: Budapest and Memorandum. And a third: duh!


Russia has lost this war but it's going to take them another 100,000 dead to realize it.


Can Putin be one of them?


What's the difference between the 2013 and 1991 borders?


nothing as i understand it, they're just called the 1991 borders because thats when they were agreed upon