• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ukraine Always Get What You Want

Without injecting my own opinion, I'm curious. What is a realistic endgame that most see happening with this war? Take Trump out of it for the moment. Purely as a Russia vs. Ukraine exercise, what is the realistic outcome if things keep going as they are?

The strictest of sanctions against Russia remain in place until they denounce their territorial gains and retreat back to their hole. No diplomacy, no normalizing an invasion until Russia returns to its pre-2014 borders.

Yes - even if that means never-ending sanctions.
 
The strictest of sanctions against Russia remain in place until they denounce their territorial gains and retreat back to their hole. No diplomacy, no normalizing an invasion until Russia returns to its pre-2014 borders.

Yes - even if that means never-ending sanctions.
All right. What gives you faith that it's working?
 
All right. What gives you faith that it's working?


Interest Rates in Russia are running at a cool 21 percent with 20 to 25 percent inflation.

And even if that wasn't true, I'm still not on the, "We should just let Russia take some territory from another country" plan, because it's clearly and overtly against International Law.
 
Without injecting my own opinion, I'm curious. What is a realistic endgame that most see happening with this war? Take Trump out of it for the moment. Purely as a Russia vs. Ukraine exercise, what is the realistic outcome if things keep going as they are?
It goes on for another 10 years or so as Russia gradually retreats and history regards it as a stalemate.
 
Without injecting my own opinion, I'm curious. What is a realistic endgame that most see happening with this war? Take Trump out of it for the moment. Purely as a Russia vs. Ukraine exercise, what is the realistic outcome if things keep going as they are?
If things keep going as they are, without substantial U.S. and European military aid, Ukraine will be lost to Russia at some point. That's not to say that that's how things have to be, though.

Unfortunately, it's really hard to leave Trump out of it. Not because I think either side needs him as a negotiator, because I don't think that at all. I don't think Trump helps anything.

Unless he is willing to keep providing military aid to Ukraine, as Biden did. Then, I think Ukraine wins this war, eventually -- and on its own terms, too. I don't believe Ukraine wants peace at any and all costs; I think it wants independent sovereignty and like akin to what Americans have had, and that they have shown that, consistently and courageously, which is what made Trump's recent moves against Zelensky and Ukraine all the more disgusting, disturbing and, frankly, unforgivable.

Militarily, Ukraine has done surprisingly well against Russia, both when it has help from the U.S. and others, and even recently, when it has had to go without U.S. aid thanks to Trump. I think it is Russia that wants/needs this war to end even more desperately than Ukraine does, both from an economic standpoint, and from a principles/cultural standpoint (I don't believe the Russian people actually care whether Ukraine is enveloped into their country; only Putin does), which, again, is what makes Trump's recent moves for Russia and against Ukraine all the more galling, inexplicable and unforgivable.

Trump claims to want peace, but what he really wants is peace on Russia's terms (which is really surrender, as far as Ukraine is concerned), because that's what he's allowing, or is going to allow -- as long as it results in a "peace" that makes Putin happy.

What I wish is that the U.S. could just drop a few bombs on Putin/Russia to end things, and hopefully, kill Putin. But that, of course, would probably result in the actual start of World War III. So, in lieu of that, providing aid to Ukraine -- and the U.S. and all of the European members of NATO should do this -- remains the best option until and unless Putin ever really wants, or is forced, to pull his troops out of Ukraine.

As it is, it's really scary to think we have two mad men who are in charge of the world's two most militarily dangerous countries.
 
If things keep going as they are, without substantial U.S. and European military aid, Ukraine will be lost to Russia at some point. That's not to say that that's how things have to be, though.

Unfortunately, it's really hard to leave Trump out of it. Not because I think either side needs him as a negotiator, because I don't think that at all. I don't think Trump helps anything.

Unless he is willing to keep providing military aid to Ukraine, as Biden did. Then, I think Ukraine wins this war, eventually -- and on its own terms, too. I don't believe Ukraine wants peace at any and all costs; I think it wants independent sovereignty and like akin to what Americans have had, and that they have shown that, consistently and courageously, which is what made Trump's recent moves against Zelensky and Ukraine all the more disgusting, disturbing and, frankly, unforgivable.

Militarily, Ukraine has done surprisingly well against Russia, both when it has help from the U.S. and others, and even recently, when it has had to go without U.S. aid thanks to Trump. I think it is Russia that wants/needs this war to end even more desperately than Ukraine does, both from an economic standpoint, and from a principles/cultural standpoint (I don't believe the Russian people actually care whether Ukraine is enveloped into their country; only Putin does), which, again, is what makes Trump's recent moves for Russia and against Ukraine all the more galling, inexplicable and unforgivable.

Trump claims to want peace, but what he really wants is peace on Russia's terms (which is really surrender, as far as Ukraine is concerned), because that's what he's allowing, or is going to allow -- as long as it results in a "peace" that makes Putin happy.

What I wish is that the U.S. could just drop a few bombs on Putin/Russia to end things, and hopefully, kill Putin. But that, of course, would probably result in the actual start of World War III. So, in lieu of that, providing aid to Ukraine -- and the U.S. and all of the European members of NATO should do this -- remains the best option until and unless Putin ever really wants, or is forced, to pull his troops out of Ukraine.

As it is, it's really scary to think we have two mad men who are in charge of the world's two most militarily dangerous countries.


Ironically Trump's version of "peace" is going to spark a Cold War reboot, with Kyiv now playing the part of Berlin here in version 2.0.
 
Without injecting my own opinion, I'm curious. What is a realistic endgame that most see happening with this war? Take Trump out of it for the moment. Purely as a Russia vs. Ukraine exercise, what is the realistic outcome if things keep going as they are?
There's not really a way to separate Trump out of it, because his actions and the ones very likely to follow have stacked the deck in Russia's favor.

My guess is they eventually break through Ukrainian lines, roll into Kyiv and reclaim the whole country for themselves. Then they spend a decade futility trying to put down the never-ending guerrilla war and sabotage that will make our stay in Afghanistan look like a spa vacation. Finally they say to heck with it, keep some otherwise insignificant chunk of ground to save face and spend forever paying off the bills while Ole Vlad molders in his grave.
 
I'm still not on the, "We should just let Russia take some territory from another country" plan, because it's clearly and overtly against International Law.

Fine. Then declare war. Because putting them on Double Secret Probation and having Ukraine flags as your Facebook avatar just isn't going to provide the desired outcome.

If/when the U.S decides to take Greenland, is the rest of the world going to let it happen? Or do only we get to make those decisions?
 
We would deserve sanctions too. Practically speaking they may not come because of the realpolitik considerations, but I would be completely ashamed of this country. And "but he's doing it toooooo …" didn't fly on the playground and shouldn't fly in the rest of life.
 
I find it really hard to believe that a U.S. invasion of Canada or a Danish territory would go unanswered by NATO.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top