> Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country?
Logistics (Ukraine shares a large border with Russia) and people - the people in currently occupied Ukraine aren't as against Russia as those in Afghanistan may be. Even now, we don't really see much of sabotage.
> All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave.
And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning.
> Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base.
While losing hundred of thousands of young men and decimating their population. Russia has more men. They can stand a war of attrition a lot longer - and they value soldier's lives less than we do in the west.
> Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources.
Similarly, Ukraine is kidnapping people on the streets to send them to the front lines.
> Russia has more men
This is true in general. But not true for soldiers. They have more so many men willing to fight in Ukraine. If they have so many men - why the are Korean soldiers fighting for Russia? Or Africans?
From Russian perspective it doesn't matter because they value Korean life the same: zero. Koreans are expensive, though. God knows what putin is trading for their troops. Probably rocket and nuclear technologies.
From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder for to the language barrier and unaware of modern combat full with FPV drones.
I'm not sure of the accuracy of this, so take it with a grain of salt, but I did hear that rocket and nuclear technology is indeed part of the deal - terrifying. NK will also provide artillery shells.
> From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder
Well, that's the soviet doctrine. Men are useless cannon fodder. It does give the NK the chance to catch up on modern combat.
and maybe you echo reddit too much, or some biased Ukrainian news site. It is no secret that Russia has more fighting men. It's just logical, since they have a significantly higher population.
Ukraine has so many men willing to fight that they have to kidnap them on the streets?
There's Korean soldiers fighting in Kursk only, as far as I'm aware. None in Ukraine. It's free man power for Russia. Both sides have merceneries from Africa and South America, among others.
They are not overwhelming the Ukrainian side. They are making very slow, grinding advances, and taking massive casualties in the process. Between five and ten times as many as the Ukrainian casualties, because this has turned into a war that heavily favors defense.
How much land on average have the Russians gained over the last 12 months? What is the projection of time until they take all of it? I recall the calculation bring 20+ years.
The Russian war machine cannot replace its losses, thus they rely on NK men and equipment, amazing job by the Ukrainians and the West destroying the Russian army twice and depleting all the old Soviet stock.
I think it might be even more than 20, it is slow but they are gaining. I don't think their objective is to get whole of Ukraine but the eastern oblasts (which they do have most of already) and maybe a buffer zone. But that's my speculation.
NK men are only in Kursk / Russian region. I don't think there's any confirmed NK men fighting in Ukraine.
According to iiss [1], Russia does not have man power issues, unlike Ukraine.
> amazing job by the Ukrainians and the West destroying the Russian army twice and depleting all the old Soviet stock.
I only wish it wasn't at the cost of hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian men.
> And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning.
Winning, but winning very slowly. Unless Ukraine collapses, Russian victory is likely years away (depending of course on what Russia decides to consider “victory”)
Although Ukraine is outnumbered, the fact they are mostly playing defence not offence gives them an advantage
If Ukraine drags this out for long enough, there is the possibility Russia may lose its patience with the war before Ukraine does, and Ukraine may suddenly gain the upper hand. If Trump forces Ukraine into a peace deal in which Russia gets most of what it wants, that won’t happen
Russia controls large portions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts. I imagine walking away with those areas would be a huge victory for them.
How long can Ukraine drag this out? They are suffering manpower issues more than Russia. I don't think it's likely that Russia will lose its patience before Ukraine. I wish, but I don't see it. Their economy is somewhat dependent on their military-industrial complex.
Is this the goal? To slowly lose land and lives to Russia, in hopes that they get bored, or that Ukrainians magically get a wonder weapon?
I think the Ukrainian hope is the war eventually becomes so unpopular in Russia that it endangers Putin’s rule. Then political instability strikes Moscow - Putin is removed in a coup or assassinated - and faced with the chaos in Moscow, Russian battlefield morale collapses, frontline troops are withdrawn to Moscow to fight over who is Putin’s successor, etc - suddenly Ukrainian troops massively advance
How plausible is that scenario? I don’t know. It isn’t impossible. More likely to happen in a few years time (assuming the war lasts that long). Probably not happening this year, but one never knows - who predicted Prigozhin‘s abortive coup in June 2023? Who knows if or when such an event might happen again - maybe next time more successfully?
Trump’s recent moves arguably reduce the odds of such a development by increasing Russian perceptions that the war is likely to be resolved on terms they’ll find favourable. However, Trump is fickle, and it isn’t impossible that with time he’ll move to a position the Russians will find less encouraging (it isn’t guaranteed, of course)
Prigozhin's "coup" was probably the closest thing to it. Unfortunately I do not share your optimism in here - Putin planted him self well and surrounded himself by loyal men.
Continuing to send men to die in a losing battle without an actual plan, hoping that the opponent's leadership falls, seems like an awful idea to me. It gives me similar vibes to "our scientists are on the verge of creating a wonder weapon" that is often propagated on losing sides, e.g Germany in WW2.
It's hard to see that as a huge victory at the cost of more than 900.00p casualties for something Russia has plenty of - land.
Also economic collapse (high inflation, high interest rates, and no industry).
Ukraine just needs to continue to chip away at them, the bigger they are, the bigger the fall, and Russians aren't paying the price for this blunder yet.
> Been waiting for that economic collapse for 3 years. How many more Ukrainian men must die before we get it? How many more are you okay with dying?
What possibly leads you to believe that Ukraine capitulating will end Russia's push to kill Ukrainians? Russia is engaging in a massive ethnic cleansing campaign, as documented in cases such as Bucha. Do you honestly believe that will stop if Ukraine surrendered as Trump is demanding them to?
Try to think about it: why do you think Zelenski is so adamant in demanding security guarantees?
The regions that Russia is after, has some vague historic link to Russia, had a high pro Russian population percentage or provided land connection to Crimea as well as water supply that was blocked by Ukraine. I do believe that there is a good chance Putin would be satisfied with the eastern oblasts. It would also be a lot more difficult holding western part of Ukraine as their population is much more anti-Russia. I don't know for certain, and it is speculation, but that's what I think.
I completely understand why Zelenskyy wants security guarantees. I would too in his place. I don't blame him for that at all - but I don't think it will happen and I would not want my country to provide any security guarantee for Ukraine. I personally would not go to war for Ukraine.
> The regions that Russia is after, has some vague historic link to Russia, had a high pro Russian population percentage or provided land connection to Crimea as well as water supply that was blocked by Ukraine.
Huge red flag here and a big lie. Let's break it down:
Those "pro russia regions" voted for Zelensky, which was very clear about Ukraine's independence and sovereignty.[0]
> I personally would not go to war for Ukraine.
At the rate you're spreading disinformation here, one does start to wonder if you're even in a Western country lmao
Zelenskyy didn't run on anti Russian. He gained support because he ran on anti corruption and ending the wars in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. He was less anti Russian than Petro Poroshenko, which is why Zelenskyy received more share than Poroshenko in those regions as opposed to more western parts of Ukraine.
I'm not saying those regions are more pro russia than Ukraine, but that there is non minor population in there that is pro russia, ethnically russian or speaks russian - which is why russia wants them.
What do you think the russian's end goal here is? To capture all of Ukraine? And then go to Europe?
> At the rate you're spreading disinformation here, one does start to wonder if you're even in a Western country lmao
My country shares the border with Ukraine - I'm not separated from them by an ocean. Just because you don't like facts, doesn't make it disinformation.
I'm not saying those regions are more pro russia than Ukraine, but that there is non minor population in there that is pro russia, ethnically russian or speaks russian - which is why russia wants them.
That's a very weak argument. For example, Kherson, one of the four officially annexed regions of Ukraine, is 82% Ukrainian and only 14% Russian. Even Brighton Beach and a number of other Brooklyn neighborhoods have more Russians than that. And Russian ethnic background does not mean that they support the war: over 80% Russians in Ukraine say that Russia has no right over any part of Ukraine.
Polling leaked from Russian authorities running the occupied territories revealed the same thing: even after hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians had fled as refugees, and the remaining had been subjected to terror, nowhere did the support for joining Russia exceed 30%.
This fits nicely with the pre-war polls that showed support ranging from 1% in Kherson to 13% in Luhansk.
Theres enough ethnic russians in there, plus history, for russia to justify (to its citizens / to its allies) the invasion. I dont think the invasion is justified, but do think that russia will stop at the 4 eastern oblasts.
I dont see any good reason why russia would want to take the rest of Ukraine unless they posed a threat (e.g hosting NATO bases/missiles, which wont happen)
Maybe Im wrong. But in my opinion, it's worth the risk to stop the deaths of Ukrainian men.
My whole reasoning is that it's the best choice given the circumstances. I've said my reasons why I think Russia may be satisfied with the eastern oblasts and not seek more. User disagrees, not much I can discuss against "There's always some excuse".
My original point, was that Ukraine is losing and in my opinion, it is in their best interest to give those away if it means peace. Given that we can't agree on if Russia will be satisfied with those regions, I thought it best to shift the discussion to what options they have. I wouldn't advocate for Ukraine surrendering those territories if I thought they had better options / a chance to win the war.
I've said my reasons why I think Russia may be satisfied with the eastern oblasts and not seek more.
Exactly the same reasons apply to other oblasts of Ukraine as well (land bridge to Transnistria), and to Poland and Lithuania (land bridge to Kaliningrad).
The alternative is stopping this comedic drip-feeding of tanks in batches of 4 out of misplaced expectation that Mr. Hitler will surely stop at Poland, and giving Ukraine the full support of European militaries and industries. This is by far the cheapest option. Thankfully, the latest developments indicate that things are heading exactly this way. Today, the EU agreed on increasing defense spending by 800bn. To put this into perspective: so far, Ukraine has received 64bn of military aid from the US and 62bn from Europe.
Are you suggesting that EU is purposefully limiting the military aid to Ukraine, maybe to drag out the war? I hope that's not the case.
> misplaced expectation that Mr. Hitler will surely stop at Poland
Well, US/UK did it once with USSR. They allowed SU control over Poland and east Germany.
According to iiss [1], Ukraine is "Equipped but not staffed" although they do mention "they will likely need significantly more weapons".
It is my understanding (I may be wrong) that their main shortage is artillery shells, which is mainly because EU can't actually produce enough, and have been ramping up.
The 800bn sounds exciting, and hopefully we do actually get 800bn increase since 650bn is
> “allow member states to significantly increase their defense expenditures without triggering” punishing rules aimed at keeping deficits from going too far into the red [2]. It is my understanding that countries may choose not to increase their defense as much, but hopefully they do as it's greatly needed in EU.
Well, US/UK did it once with USSR. They allowed SU control over Poland and east Germany.
You have forgotten the Cold War. The Russians stopped only where they were forced to stop. Western European countries set up an entire new international organization, NATO, for cooperation in case of a Russian attack on any of them, and permanently maintained massive armies to until the very end of the Soviet Union to prevent any further Russian creep west.
The US, UK, and others did not pack things up and go home at the end of WWII, believing that the Russians had their belly full with Eastern Europe and wouldn't push for more. The UK, for example, withdrew its last forces from continental Europe only in 2010. The US withdrew last combat forces in 2013.
Looks like Russia took that as an invitation to invade Ukraine the very next year.
It's not that hard and even no troops required. Send more weapons without restrictions to use them against Russians, tight real sanctions and they will be defeated
First russians came for Ichkeria and I did nothing because I'm not a Chechen.
Then russians came for Georgia and I did nothing because I'm not a Georgian.
Then they came for Ukraine...
We don't need to fight. We only need to hand over to Ukraine the weapons they have been asking for since 2022. A few Taurus with the gloves off and Ukraine instantly gets far closer to prevent Russia from continuing their whole war effort.
I'ts no less terrifying for Russian men when the goons show up to take you away I assure you.
Sadly my family in Russia has been impacted by this, not in being conscripted forcefully themselves, but needing to destroy their own livelyhoods so that it is not possible for them to facilitate the the sending of others to the front line.
Those videos are amplified greatly by Russian propaganda bots, one thing to put them in check is to ask how many hundreds of thousands of young Russian men fled and climbed through walls once the mobilization was announced by the regime.
I think it was 1.000.000+ men lmao
Now that's trying to escape war. In every war there's people avoiding conscription, and Russians do it by orders or magnitude we probably haven't seen on record.
Those videos are amplified by russian bots, but it doesn't make them any less true.
A lot of Russian men did flee, but they no longer conscript, while Ukraine still does. And Ukraine forces men into vans to send them to the frontlines. Russia just keeps increasing the pay.
Ukraine had to close borders to men because so many were trying to flee. Millions of Ukrainians sought refuge throughout Europe.
> And Ukraine forces men into vans to send them to the frontlines. Russia just keeps increasing the pay.
It would be honest of you to mention the flood of videos on Russian social media showing crippled Russian soldiers on crutches dragged into trucks, driven to the frontline, and forced to attack. Some of them are featured here: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/22/europe/russia-wounded-tro... And this is how they end up, absolutely incredible sight, one "attacking" on crutches, the other next to him crawling on all fours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CQcftiP3jQ
I have not seen anything this wild on the Ukrainian side.
> Those videos are amplified by russian bots, but it doesn't make them any less true.
I never said they ain't true, as I said - not everyone wants to be in a war, and this happens literally in every war. I just pointed out that in the case of Russia it occurred in an unprecedented manner, while what happens in Ukraine is what's more in line with war.
> A lot of Russian men did flee, but they no longer conscript, while Ukraine still does.
Conscription would probably lead to the final collapse of the Russian economy, they are resorting to the misery of the population which are joining the war with entrepreneurial ambitions (getting well paid... which is a sad event given the high interest rates and inflation). Russia hasn't declared war, and probably never will as that would be a threat to the regime.
> Ukraine had to close borders to men because so many were trying to flee. Millions of Ukrainians sought refuge throughout Europe.
Like in any country being invaded with Martial Law in place.
Ukrainian bots amplify pro-Ukrainian narratives, NATO bots amplify pro-NATO narratives, Russian bots amplify pro-Russian narratives. Every country participates in propaganda.
> I just pointed out that in the case of Russia it occurred in an unprecedented manner, while what happens in Ukraine is what's more in line with war.
Russia did not kidnap man from the streets to force to the frontline, at least not that I'm aware of, and certainly not in the numbers that Ukraine does. Conscription happens in wars, but forcing men off the street to go to the frontline?
> Conscription would probably lead to the final collapse of the Russian economy
I've been hearing that Russian's economy is on the brink of collapse for the last three years. It's awful compared to the West, but they have transitioned into war-fueled economy well, and are still doing well enough despite the war and all the sanctions.
> Like in any country being invaded with Martial Law in place.
So same like Russia? Men want to flee from getting conscripted.
In a coordinated operation, Russian authorities conducted raids on three of Moscow’s largest and most popular nightclubs on Friday night, detaining hundreds of men and taking them to military conscription offices.
According to witnesses, dozens of police vehicles, including paddy wagons, lined up outside the nightclubs as enforcement personnel, accompanied by police K9 units, systematically entered the establishments. Clubgoers described the scene as chaotic, with people being escorted out in groups. The authorities focused their efforts on male patrons, detaining many of them and subsequently transporting them to local military conscription offices. Women, on the other hand, were eventually released after their passports were photographed.
One attendee, who wished to remain anonymous, described the atmosphere inside as tense and surreal. “It was like nothing I’ve ever experienced. They came in and started checking IDs, taking the men away without much explanation. The music stopped, and everyone just froze,” the witness said.
Human rights activists advise young men to live somewhere else than their official address and to avoid public transportation, because raids at metro stations are commonplace, as the local news report:
After the beginning of the autumn call, the police regularly conduct raids in which deviators are identified from military service. Security forces come to the hostels for migrants and warehouses in Moscow and the region, as well as check passengers in the subway. Over the past day, the police conducted raids near the metro station “Electrozavodsk”, and also presented 26 subpoenas to the army in the Krasnogorsk hostel.
> Ukrainian bots amplify pro-Ukrainian narratives, NATO bots amplify pro-NATO narratives, Russian bots amplify pro-Russian narratives. Every country participates in propaganda.
Yeah, except Russian propaganda is composed mainly by lies (truth be told, terrible lies that would only work in people with very poor cognitive capacity).
> Russia did not kidnap man from the streets to force to the frontline, at least not that I'm aware of, and certainly not in the numbers that Ukraine does. Conscription happens in wars, but forcing men off the street to go to the frontline?
Another lie.
Not only they kidnaped men, they kidnapped foreign workers.[0]
> So same like Russia? Men want to flee from getting conscripted.
Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization, here's one example of what happened just at the border with Georgia (Russia is a big place): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzv5fM1LWXk
> Not only they kidnaped men, they kidnapped foreign workers.[0]
From your source:
> were lured by agents with the promise of money and jobs, sometimes as "helpers" in the Russian army.
So where's the kidnapping? Seems like you lie just as much as this "russian propaganda". There is no kidnapping.
> Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization
How about the millions in Europe? I see Ukrainian men everyday in my country.
> In an analysis of figures from EU statistics agency Eurostat in November, BBC Ukrainian found that some 768,000 Ukrainian men aged 18-64 had left the country for the EU alone since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion.
It doesn't look good when you start arguing about semantics when English is not your main language, so let me help you here: When you take someone against their will, it's called kidnapping.
Here's the definition:kidnapping, criminal offense consisting of the unlawful taking and carrying away of a person by force or fraud or the unlawful seizure and detention of a person against his will.[0]
So clearly they were kidnapped and held by force, some were lured which is also kidnapping by definition, and it's well known by the way, another example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64582985
So not only are you lying, you're doubling down spreading misinformation, and you're accusing others of providing you with sources of being liars.
In my original post, I did say kidnapping from the street. Luring them in with promises or fear of deportation isn't exactly that - but semantics. I got carried away, I do consider that morally wrong just like the Ukrainian ones. I will concede and agree with you that Russians are kidnapping. I don't think anyone should be pressured or forced to the frontline like that. Ukrainian, Russian, or otherwise.
> You're talking about refugees, of which 2 thirds are women and children?[0] Then you refer to millions of men in Europe, showing a 768.000 figure.
Well, if 2/3 are women out of 6 million then 2 million would be men. But semantics, we can confirm that theres atleast 768k according to Eurostat. Which I think satisfies your claim: (somewhat, unless you get picky about the "upon the announcement of mobilization")
> Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization
Nearly every country that has been attacked has forced conscription. The US did during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and we weren't even attacked in 3 of those.
Vietnam wasn't a war of defense, so it's not a great comparison. Maybe better to compare UK conscription in WW2. Which I can't really say whether it's immoral or not.
> Calling everything that doesn't paint Ukraine in a good light "Russian propaganda" is tiring.
It doesn't make it less Russian propaganda though, and from the same blend of the gay Nazi biolabs nonsense that's constantly spewed around. A telltale sign is the duality of criteria.
You have a lot of really bad takes such that I think you're intentionally trying to misunderstand or dishonestly represent an unbalanced take.
I don't know what your motivation is but I hope you'll stop. It will be more convincing as well if it looks like you're making a fair point in earnest.
User A: forced conscription of men is authoritarian and should be critiqued.
User B: that is russian propaganda!!
What am I misunderstanding, or dishonestly representing? If you don't want to have a discussion, you don't have to participate, but those cheap takes contribute nothing to a discussion.
The need to transport items through forests comes from the new unjammable wire-guided drones. Anything on roads within 5+ kilometers of the frontline is easily spotted and destroyed.
Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country?
> and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable.
All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave.
Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base.
Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources.
> But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.