Killings won’t go any higher after a peace treaty than they would without one. Either the war goes on and Russians keep killing civilians in occupied territory, or Russians keep killing civilians in conquered territory. I’d even water that killings of civilians would decrease if the war ended.
Option 1: keep fighting a war your losing, thus losing more soldiers, weapons, supplies, and civilians.
Option 2: accept your losses and live to fight again another day.
Option 3: Grind Russia down to a halt, then throw them out of the country.
If you think that this war can’t be won you haven’t talked to Ukrainians. Also, do have a look at the loss statistics Russia vs. Ukraine. Even Russia can’t keep up this level of attrition, least of all in an offensive war.
That might be possible if they could maintain their momentum, but they clearly haven’t and cannot. This is not a war of power or superiority or willpower, it’s simply a matter of resources. Even though Russia has lost much more, they also have much more to lose.
First off, even if the west stopped supporting Ukraine tomorrow they’d fight on: With Molotov cocktails, as they did in the beginning. (Also it’d be practically impossible to stop the Poles from putting boots on the ground in that situation, different topic).
Secondly, resources is exactly why we’re supporting Ukraine. “They’d lose if we stop therefore we have to stop” is not really a good argument if you ask me.
And Russia doesn’t have that much more to lose while Ukraine is starting to strike deep into Russia breaking their backbone. Can’t circumvent oil sanctions if you have no ports to fill up ships with. The Russians can buy North Korean artillery with missile tech blueprints but China’s “friendship” only goes so far as Russia’s chequebook: No money, no silicon. Ukraine’s support backbone, meanwhile, is located deep within NATO territory.
And WTF is “maintain their momentum” supposed to mean. This isn’t a 400m race, or a game of CSGO. There’s ebbs and floods in every war as the sides manoeuvre and adapt.
Absolutely. That means they win and they get the land they sought after. One of their biggest goals was to regain control over the dnipro River so they could reopen the fresh water supply to Crimea that was cut off back in 2012
That mindset has lead to the loss of many wars throughout history. It’s easy to have so much pride and valor when you’re no where near the front lines.
Solution: accept defeat. Draw new borders. Stop the bloodshed.
At this rate, if Ukraine depletes its ammunition, Russia will be able to roll over them. Best to draw up a treaty before the tables turn
You want ten thousand Buchas? Because that’s how you get ten thousand Buchas.
Killings won’t go any higher after a peace treaty than they would without one. Either the war goes on and Russians keep killing civilians in occupied territory, or Russians keep killing civilians in conquered territory. I’d even water that killings of civilians would decrease if the war ended.
Option 1: keep fighting a war your losing, thus losing more soldiers, weapons, supplies, and civilians. Option 2: accept your losses and live to fight again another day.
Option 3: Grind Russia down to a halt, then throw them out of the country.
If you think that this war can’t be won you haven’t talked to Ukrainians. Also, do have a look at the loss statistics Russia vs. Ukraine. Even Russia can’t keep up this level of attrition, least of all in an offensive war.
That might be possible if they could maintain their momentum, but they clearly haven’t and cannot. This is not a war of power or superiority or willpower, it’s simply a matter of resources. Even though Russia has lost much more, they also have much more to lose.
First off, even if the west stopped supporting Ukraine tomorrow they’d fight on: With Molotov cocktails, as they did in the beginning. (Also it’d be practically impossible to stop the Poles from putting boots on the ground in that situation, different topic).
Secondly, resources is exactly why we’re supporting Ukraine. “They’d lose if we stop therefore we have to stop” is not really a good argument if you ask me.
And Russia doesn’t have that much more to lose while Ukraine is starting to strike deep into Russia breaking their backbone. Can’t circumvent oil sanctions if you have no ports to fill up ships with. The Russians can buy North Korean artillery with missile tech blueprints but China’s “friendship” only goes so far as Russia’s chequebook: No money, no silicon. Ukraine’s support backbone, meanwhile, is located deep within NATO territory.
And WTF is “maintain their momentum” supposed to mean. This isn’t a 400m race, or a game of CSGO. There’s ebbs and floods in every war as the sides manoeuvre and adapt.
Do you think Russia would honor that treaty?
Absolutely. That means they win and they get the land they sought after. One of their biggest goals was to regain control over the dnipro River so they could reopen the fresh water supply to Crimea that was cut off back in 2012
Go suck Putin’s cock a little harder, Vatnik. Ukraine’s independence and territory are non-negotiable.
That mindset has lead to the loss of many wars throughout history. It’s easy to have so much pride and valor when you’re no where near the front lines.