Comments by "Siana Gearz" (@SianaGearz) on "The Three Reasons the Russia-Ukraine War Hasn't Ended" video.

@Beat Mymeat the problem is also there is no enforcement method against Russia that would be necessarily effective and palatable to possible guarantor countries.
8
@trevoropalinski This is the Maersheimer thesis but everyone else disagrees with it, it is based on a MASSIVE leap of logic "this is how it used to be, thus this is how it must be". We are in the 21st century and Russia is a major nuclear power with all the resources it needs, it would survive just fine. The problem is Putin. Strong Ukraine developing towards Norwegian economic model, with ever increasing standard of living, democratic, is a hazard personally for Putin, people in Russia would necessarily start pushing for having the same in their country.
5
Russia no longer has oligarchs. Oligarchs of the 90s had political power. Oligarchs today breathe when FSB allows them to. They basically hold the money in escrow for Putin. Developing Ukraine was a hazard to Putin personally. His throne would get shaky if the former left leg of Soviet Union got more developed than Russia itself. Ukraine was set to follow the Norway model, very promising indeed. Russia is suffering gravely from Dutch Disease, where hydrocarbons and other natural resources cause a developmental regression.
5
@EloquentTroll honestly not worth it. Nothing you haven't read before from the 15 rouble crew.
2
@the_mad_fool Ah, perfect.
2
Wat. Ukraine has a duty to protect its population. So prolonging the war is not in its interest. A show of overwhelming force would be a pretty solid argument to not try invading Ukraine again; however forces are somewhat matched, Ukraine has largely home turf advantage. However situation do and will occur in which it's possible to spend some time causing attrition to Russia while minimising own attrition. These opportunities are taken to wear down the Russian forces and give Ukraine an advantage when it does decide to push.
1
@the_mad_fool You're arguing two different points together, which i don't think quite belong together. It is very obvious that a half hearted "peace" such as giving away territory and drawing a line in the sand is a no-go for Ukraine. I'm not going to disagree with that. Ukraine requires full defeat of Russia. But it doesn't mean that Ukraine desires a long war. The longer Ukraine is in war mode, the more damage it will accumulate. People's lives, their homes and places of work, infrastructure. Russians are not particularly kind to Ukrainians on occupied territories, as you have also observed, so at any given time, minimising the number of occupied Ukrainians is a goal, and territories under Ukrainian control are also in hazard from missiles and loitering munitions from ongoing war. Economy operating in wartime mode also causes economic damage, which is precisely why Ukraine wasn't better prepared, better armed, etc by Feb 2022, because Ukrainian economy could not sustain an arms race with Russia. If Ukraine could achieve a conclusive liberation of its territories by today, it would have, but it was not possible, not for the lack of desire. If Zelensky administration artificially stops progress of liberating occupied territories only to make a point and punish Russia, Zelensky will be gone in 3 weeks. Ukrainians have eyes on their heads and are not shy expressing their disagreement, and now quite a number of them are armed in the Territorial Defence Forces and such. Wladimir Klychko will probably personally knock out anyone who contributes to such a decision. To the extent that you are right, Ukraine will not sign a peace agreement until something substantial happens to make freedom stick, like regime change in Russia or some sort of practical international assurance like full NATO membership or UN mission on full territory of Ukraine.
1