Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

You could be right but in that case - the Ukrainians in Kyiv will certainly be able to attack the surrounded Russians on a daily basis. In terms of Power

in terms of Communication

Coordinating attacks with Ukrainian military units outside the city will be effective. And the Russians on the outskirts of the city will be badly isolated. Their already stretched supply lines will be dire at that stage. And that doesnt even touch on irregular warfare surely to be employed against them

Listen i agree the situation is Terrible. And arguably dire for Ukraine. But its not hopeless - not by a long shot - and yes maybe that is my heart over ruling my head - but il take it

In terms of discussing this, i am happy to do so with the caveats that - not an expert etc - I read a lot, most IR graduates are fiends for military history - that said if mods prefer we stick to the political situation - i respectfully yield. Also goes without saying that anyone with military expertise can offer more information than i ever could

I believe it wont come to that. There are likely over a million people - both soldiers and civilians - within the confines of the city, and I really cant see the whole world standing by much longer and letting a scenario like that play out. A terrible death from starvation and thirst for that huge amount of people is unimaginable, and akin to the horrors of nazi concentration camps. I would imagine that if not Nato or the USA stepping in, then you'll find that perhaps Poland or a few of the Baltic states will decide enough is enough and join the fray.

I still have a feeling that this will conclude with some sort of diplomatic solution. The West want it to end, and Putin simply wont be able to maintain momentum much longer judging by his military efforts to date... and of course the noose that is tightening around him with crippling sanctions. The war chest cannot be replenished.

There still remains the possibility, however slight, of Putin being taken out by his own - certainly the longer this goes on then the odds increase proportionately. Or of course we could all be totally wrong and he'll bring about armageddon. It Hitler would have had nuclear weapons I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he would have used them, and Putin does seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Even if it garners information that saves multiple innocent lives?

I see Zalensky has finally admitted that Ukraine cannot join NATO. If he had done that publicly a couple of months ago this whole mess could have been avoided.

Russia are wrong in what they have done, obviously, and Putin is a kleptoctatic dictator. However, you have to admit that their concerns of having another NATO member, armed to the teeth, on their border, is a legitimate concern for the Russians.

NATO have to take some of the blame for this war as well as Putin. Both sides using the Ukranian people as pawns in wider geopolitical chess game.

I hope the war is ended asap and that Ukraine are able to rebuild what remains of their country with assistance from Moscow, Brussels and Washington. All working together to ensure that they become a peaceful, prosperous and Neutral nation. Crimea is lost to them and Eastern Ukraine will also be subsumed into Russia.

I do not have a hard on for Putin btw, but nor am I under any illusions that Boris, Biden and co are any better. They just talk nicer while they directly or indirectly butcher people around the world.

The lack of any balance in western media coverage has been disgusting as well. Rachel Maddow saying Putin is worse than Hitler because, whatever else Hitler did, he did not kill German speakers or Ethnic Germans! You can google her tweet if u like.

She appears to be saying that German, or german speaking, Austrian, Swiss or Checezlovakian Jews, Gypsies, Gays or Jehovah's Witnesses were not legitimately German?

So, defending Hitler and undermining the humanity of victims of Nazi attrocities is now a liberal position? Orwellian is an understatement....

But there you go, I will be branded a Putin apologist and traitor to western ideals for pointing that out....

This was never just about NATO.

If it was just about an 'armed to the teeth' Ukraine, what offensive weapons systems were deployed in Ukraine could have been negotiated at a NATO Russia summit - alongside say, stationing of similar weapons in Kalingrad and Baltic states. One was planned. But Putin massed troops on the border instead. Maybe because if it got those guarantees at the summit, he wouldn't have the excuse he wanted to invade.

They wanted to demilitarize Ukraine - not just keep it out of NATO. So it could never oppose Russia again should it do anything Russia didn't approve of, Russia would be back.

They wanted to keep it out of all blocs - that includes the EU.

They tried to take out the democratic government in Kiev and install a puppet, so they could bring Ukraine back into the corrupt mess it was trying to evolve out of. Like a bigger Belarus with more things worth stealing.

They wanted to size a large area of Ukraine, an area the people have already voted to stay Ukranian - not just the areas they already detabilised with their little green men.

Oh and look, therte's added whataboutery entirely irrelevent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Because you couldn't not leave that out, could you?

The question is if Russia implodes, which is looking increasingly likely then what happens to NATO?

After the Iraq war and two wasted decades in Afghanistan it's far more likely that EU members will be unified in a beefed up defensive alliance that isn't an extension of US foreign policy.

Some kind of guarantee such as if they give up their nukes that US would protect them from Russia? (and vice versa)

lol. The whole Russia fiasco has shown one thing, and thats mutual defence promises are not worth very much when it comes down to it. Countries will find ways to wriggle out of having to go to war because of the nuclear deterrent.

If only - unfortunately there is far too much division in the EU to get any kind of cohesive defence capability. The bloc struggled to agree to economic sanctions, there is no way theyd get agreement for military action of any description, not under current setup.

The fuel crisis from sanctioning Russia will make EU far more reliant on US for LPG and oil, so will have an EU even more US aligned than previous.

The Ukraine shock for the EU will drive consumers more away from fossil fuel exporters.

The EU may have it's political fault lines, but it's consumers are unified in desiring to maintain their high standard of living.

The Trump years were a shock too which forced EU members to create workarounds to his Iran sanctions.

I think we were talking about this in CA perhaps - i think we agree that there will have to be a third party guarantee for any agreement on Ukraine sovereignty, or neutrality if that were included. The Guarantor needs to be able to deter further Russian aggression. In my hypothetical, i used Belgium pre ww1 as an analogy. Said state was guaranteed by Britain, France and Germany. Of course, this failed and WW1 took place. But of course Nuclear deterrence did not feature at the time. I would speculate that the third parties need to be able to fully deter Russia from further aggression. I note that some people speculated that NATO as a third party guarantor would be unacceptable to Russia. Accepting that for a moment, i run into a wall when i try to imagine any other 'bespoke bloc' that could form to fill this gap.

In Terns of Russia agreeing to any sort of 'backed up Neutrality', will they do so sooner rather than later? A lot depends on the soft power squeeze being inflicted on the Kremlin. Coupled with further Ukrainian resistance. So obviously hypothetical Chinese support for the Kremlin, would only serve to 'lessen the squeeze' - an unwelcome development should it occur.