Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "WW3 Averted? Ukraine War Ending Soon?" video.

...This is the issue I have with the other side. Do you actually see that happening? And if not, how do you think this war will end? The pro-Ukraine people (since they wont negotiate on the 2nd terms you gave) refuse to entertain the idea that Russia won't give an unconditional surrender. My simple question is, what if they don't? How do you achieve peace if your imagined pre-requisite never happens?
5
@ravenblood1954 I mean... their demands are not keeping the territory. Their demands are the dissolution of the current government, which was established after 2 separate violations of Ukraine's Constitution which the Verkhovnaya Rada oversaw. Accepting the results of the Crimean referendum, while keeping your current government, is the compromise. "Peace" doesn't mean complete victory for one side. It means that the bullets stop firing. It means compromise, and until Ukraine understands this, the conflict will continue in one form or another.
4
@PlatinumAltaria ..So, basically proving my point again. You refuse to believe that you could possible be wrong, or that the scenario doesn't play out exactly as you've described it. At least, not in a way that benefits Ukraine. There are lives to negotiate. That goes for Ukraine, too. lol And in spite of all of what you said, 8 years later, Crimea in still Russian and will likely remain so. You can argue with me on the internet all you want, but the truth is that all possibilities are open-- and it is all about likelihood. Anything is technically possible, but some outcomes are more probable than others. I see it as likely that Russia will further reduce its holdings to just Donbas and Crimea, and will keep the conflict brewing to force a negotiation. Now, given all that-- do you expect Ukraine to keep throwing bodies at their eastern front? Assuming you don't just say "no you're wrong, Ukraine just.. .can't lose! I can't accept the idea that they won't win!!"
3
Ultimately, if an end to the conflict is going to be reached, then this will need to happen. I think Putin (and Medvedev who will succeed him, and especially Kadyrov) are willing to use nuclear force. So unless Ukraine wants to take it that far, it will need to negotiate at some point. Basically the pro-Western side holds 2 contradictory views: 1) We will not negotiate with Russia on anything less than full withdrawal (basically, unconditional surrender); and 2) The conflict must end. These 2 only make sense together if you are 100% convinced that Russia will eventually be totally defeated.
3
@PlatinumAltaria All you did was prove my point. You never answered the question lmao Basically just said "no you're wrong they won't use nukes" and "Ukraine will not negotiate" You're ignoring reality. I am asking you, what happens if Russia does not just give up and return all territory? You can tell me about principles all you want, but you still haven't given me a concrete scenario for peace in a world where Russia doesn't do exactly as you wanted. So please. Tell me
3
@ravenblood1954 How am I delusional? For exploring all possible scenarios playing out in the conflict? You literally refused to even entertain the idea that there would be any outcome besides Ukraine's complete victory. Really going for broke there, huh? The West is more prosperous because of colonialism and slavery. One only need look at Europe before the Age of "Exploration", and after. I just find it just astounding that you think the countries which had literal colonies in living memory are the "good guys". Why do you think Kenya is still furious with Britain? Why do you think France still has French Guiana-- their fantastic diplomacy and democratic governance?? You know how much Europe had funneled into it in terms of resources and FREE manpower? Untold trillions, for hundreds of years. It'd be a miracle if Europe WASN'T prosperous. That is something which Russia was A) hundreds of years late to, courtesy of the Mongols, B) stopped at every turn by Europe, which had already industrialized and colonized. See the Crimean War: all of Europe wanted to prevent Russia from having what they had: access to the sea. Same with Japan in the East. Historic instability came at the hands of constant invasion. We don't have the British Channel. Or the Mediterranean. Or the Alps, or Pyrenes, or the Atlantic. Just flat, indefensible land. How do you expect us to be stable under these conditions? The only time we came close was the 1900s, when Russia had expanded to the Carpathians in the West, the Karakum Desert in the south, and the Pacific in the far East.
3
@ravenblood1954 Yes, but it is at least a consideration of the other sides' negotiations. You claim that it's insane that Russia should even be allowed to put forth terms, yet you turn around and say that Ukraine should basically get everything it wants. Like it or not, Crimea won't return to Ukraine-- the people there literally don't want to be part of Ukraine. In 1994, when Russia was weakened and busy with Georgia, Crimea voted on its own to become autonomous. Ukraine declared it illegal. Whatever happened to respecting democracy?? Was the plan to forcefully Ukrainianize the Crimeans? Isn't that what Ukraine claims separates it from tyrannical, horrible Russia? Or is it just "okay when we do it" now? The "people of Ukraine" didn't decide their government. The Verkhovnaya Rada under-represented the southeastern regions (Russian-speaking ones) and there were counter-protests against the Maidan overthrow. It was because of massive protests in Kiev, not the entire country, that the whole government was changed. Ultimately, when you ignore these warning signs, Russia sees an opportunity-- much like the US in Middle East-- to support separatist groups. The demand is easily enforced-- they're right next to each other and Russia did it for 400 years before.
2
@mjm3091 It isn't 100% Russian, but all (minus the 2 I mentioned) areas are majority ethnically Russian. And you scenario isn't really likely. There are indeed multiple factions-- but the pro-democratic ones will quickly be snuffed out, as they are mostly funded by Western NGOs and would lose organization in event of a civil war. The oligarchs would likely elect just one of themselves to rule, and that person right now is Medvedev. Or Kadyrov-- in both cases, the conflict will continue, as both have expressed commitment to the issue and even taken it farther than Putin. The Church-- now this one is laughable. It is a cultural institution with sway over older people's lives, but ruling Russia? With what army? Let's move past that one, if you really insist then I'll explain to you why you can't rule a country with no way to have a monopoly on force. Regarding Siberia becoming independent-- how? If we assume that Siberia as a whole secedes, then sure-- but any region outside of Vladivostok will be landlocked and forced to negotiate with a neighbor that can access the world's oceans. The problem is, Vladivostok is in no position to defend itself from the US Navy, which has been trying to establish any sort of foothold in the Okhotsk Sea for decades. Any regions in between Vladivostok and the Russian core would face a similar problem-- foreign encroachment, Chinese or Western. All they have of value is minerals-- It is happening currently, but would accelerate if they all became smaller, weaker countries. Lastly, much of Siberia is dependent on investment from the Russian core to survive, especially the more remote areas. The people can't just move to China-- they don't speak Mandarin! So they will need to keep ties VERY close to Moscow even in your fantasy scenario. That is even assuming it happens, which it is VERY unlikely to. You have a surface-level understanding of Russia, which is fine, but don't go around acting like a policy expert. Or like someone who actually lives there.
2
@ravenblood1954 Um... you're going to need to specify what "your camp" means. You also can't really prove yourself right because, as with any mass of predictions, some will be proven false. Even looking at the invasion itself-- how many European and US outlets were saying that it was unlikely to happen? Are we ignoring those incredible "powers of perception"? Or are we now resorting to cherry-picking whichever outlets happen to get it right, and proclaim that it was inevitable all along? Regarding the losses-- I, unlike some people, admit that they are all failures. The Russian forces have been hollowed out by corruption for decades. (Nevermind the fact that the neoliberal oligarchs were created by Western policy advisors, I suspect on purpose). The truth is that Russia's armed forces are a shell of what they were-- yet in spite of that, Ukraine has lost its Russian-majority areas. You only need to look at 2014 to see what Ukraine was like without the US carrying it entire way. This isn't Ukraine's achievement, but the West's military testing ground.
1
@ravenblood1954 Yes, I do. I am looking at all possible scenarios, whereas your side refuses to even believe that one could exist. That's called delusion. Also, it's not about the land-- it's about security. You and I both know that US has a long track record of funding rebel groups to weaken geopolitical challengers. Or, if they fell they can get away with it, outright invasion. What makes you think they won't do the same, now that they have Ukraine in their clutches? They've been consistently trying to destroy the Russian state in whatever form it takes since at least the 1900s. Having them on our border- especially the economically and agriculturally crucial southern border-- is unacceptable.
1
@mjm3091 Well, I'm glad you at least venture outside of your imagined victory lap. I disagree with your assessment, for multiple reasons. India and especially China are still wearing of aligning with the West for any reason. A limited nuclear engagement, as seen in Japan, would not destroy half the world-- and no country would have a justifiable reason to attack Russia on Ukraine's behalf. There's no international law to do so, and any country firing would receive missiles in kind. Sanctions would be increased, a no-fly zone would be established, maybe NATO would be deployed to Ukraine, but all sides understand: asserting Ukraine's independence is not worth the entire world. Russia would, in short, not be attacked back directly. Regarding China-- the CCP has already agreed on the Amur as its northern border, and controlling all that land is extremely difficult, given their current domestic problems. "Potentially there will be some revolution or country itself may fall apart - no one will try to get hands on Russian territory though. It will eat itself down like USRR did. After being economic pariah, probably will even fall behind Belarus after this." Lol, are you finished with your fevered hateboner-fuelled ramblings? I think not. Russia currently is majority Russian, there are no further lines to divide it along. Only Chechnya and Dagestan, but they will quickly go back to fighting each other, or Georgia, as was in the past. In fact, if we go by ethnicity, northern Kazakhstan is basically Russia. Even if the Russian state somehow falls apart (again, nukes-- so very unlikely), it will just reform itself. It has twice now.
1
@ravenblood1954 My assertion is that a limited nuclear engagement will not spell the end of the world. The West will react explosively-- but only figuratively. Is Europe really gonna attack Russia, with it being right next door? Nukes would take a few minutes to reach anywhere. Again, you refuse to accept anything besides what you already believe. What happens if Russia doesn't get counter-striked, but Ukraine's cities (likely Kiev) gets flattened?
1