This is not a sound or sustainable view.

the rates are similar at the peak of the Gulags. I would argue the rates of an oppressed and poor nation undergoing massive upheaval should not have similar rates to the richest country in human history.

gl trying to convince someone that russia should keep Crimea a pretty much 0% ukraine state to stop nuclear war on the internet

I would agree.

That requires knowledge and understanding of the subject. Exteme hyperbole is the easiest way to participate without having to put thought into what you say or go where the facts say you should.

Ukraine's peace terms is a ten point plan

-radiation safety and nuclear weapons
-food safety
-energy security
-release of prisoners and internees
-implimentation of the UN charter
-withdrawl of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities
-justice
-ecocide and environmental protection
-escalation prevention
-comfirmatiom of the end of the way

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...itics-12541713

Seems to be in line with the signals we have seen recently.

Ukraine will of set very steep demands for engaging in peace talks, the reason being that a cessation of hostilities without withdrawal of troops would strongly favor Russia, which is in desperate need of reorganizing and resupplying their troops.

Will this lead anywhere?

Probably not. There are no genuine political or strategic signals that indicate that peace talks are on Russia's mind, nor have there been any such signals from Russia since the start of this invasion. They would not enter peace talks that involved much in the way of concessions.

Ukraine is hardly a nation without faults, but as far as crossing borders is concerned, it has since its most recent independence of the early 90s been one of the most peaceful nations of Europe. That was an an independence guaranteed by Russia, mind you. It was also based on a referendum in all Ukrainian regions, including Crimea.

So in this hypothetical nuclear strike, we could summarize the events like this:

a) Russia guarantees the sovereignty of a country.
b) Russia invades said country in 2014 and 2022, which at the time of the first invasion had been a peaceful nation and at the time of the second still represented no threat to Russian soil.
c) That country defends itself
d) Russia launches a nuclear weapon

You have to jump some very complicated ideological hoops to make this out to be the fault of anybody but Russia. Russia would be the country that ignored their own guarantees, Russia would be the country willing to invade, Russia would be the country which started a full-scale war and they would be the country willing to launch the first nuclear weapon. I mean, sure, nuclear war is a grave threat, but this hypothetical is more Russia stumbling itself into nuclear war than it is some cold-war style joint effort.

Of course, most of the "nuclear" talks from Russia is meant to create chaos in western media more than represent some kind of actual strategic threat. We know this because a lot of this stuff comes from outside Putin's inner circle. They know our media loves a big fat red headline that feeds on fear, and it is easier for them to exploit that at the moment than it is to create political headwinds.

All this said, we've seen Russia scale back the nuclear weapons rhetoric, probably because it is starting to cost them the support from China and India.

Russia missile striking Poland now. Seems 'accidental' and 'stray' rockets close to the border. Does Article V allow NATO to stand down due to accidents?

Some NATO dude is saying that Article IV goes before Article V which is consultations among allies about the situation impacting them. Says they need an explanation from Russia, but that there will be a proportionate response, and that essentially if this is deliberate the response will be different from the response if it is accidental.

Putin is such a dumb drunk. Not going to win, won't quit. So just bombing and fighting until an irreversible escalation- which is bound to happen (just happened)?

Nope, peace is not the solution here, endless war is.

100+ cruise missiles launched primarily at civilian infrastructure today. These aren't the types of signals one gives to suggest some potential for peace talks is around the corner. For the next few months, it seems pretty clear that Russia will attack in Donetsk, Ukraine will push in Luhansk and perhaps Zahorzhihzia and we have to see how those work out before either side is remotely going to be interest in freezing everything via peace talks.

There is nothing in Russia's actions or rhetoric for the past 10 months that indicate that they have any interest whatsoever in peace. They invaded with 200,000 men and they have now mobilized 300,000 more (or rather, attempted to do so).

The Russian regime is probably willing to exploit in eagerness for peace to force concessions that benefits their war effort. We could dress that up in a pretty frock like we did with the Minsk agreements and feel warm and fuzzy about nurturing humanity, but it would not solve anything.

Just heard another $37billion going to Ukraine via US.

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

How likely is it that a missile headed from Russia to Ukraine could hit Poland?

I get what you're saying, and generally agree. The drunken morons are not looking for peace nor do they have a track record of maintaining it. My problem is that eventually things will escalate far past the point of no return. And so the nerds and suits should be 100% working on a peace deal. It's obv never happening though which is frustrating, to say the least.

Wrong thread. Itt we conclude the war must go on!

Im not saying russia didn't start this im just saying to make peace Ukraine cant get everything they want and crimea a pretty dominantly russian state that would vote to be russia would have to be a concession in a realistic peace treaty. the other option is a years of war untill russia collapses which some might prefer but not me.

The problem is that we will never really know what Crimea actually would have voted. Look to Kherson, which Russia claims voted 87% in favor of being part of Russia, then two days after a Russian retreat the Ukrainian president walks openly in the streets among civilians.

The 2014 Crimea referendum was never observed by OSCE. Instead the observers were mainly invited from European far right and Nazi parties, with strong ties to Russian counterparts.

Now, 8 years later in Crimea we have at a minimum over 200 000 resettled Russian natives (with some numbers as high as 800 000) in Crimea. We also have reports of many forceful relocations and deportation of Ukrainian natives. This is also a tactic we recognize from other Russian occupations, using force to change local demographics.

I hear you, the war is galling. Unfortunately, you need two parties willing to enter peace talks for that to be possible. And for them to be effective, the parties have to actually want peace.

Right now the Ukrainian sentiment is likely that peace talks favor Russia; that hypothetical peace talks would just be a sham from the Russian regime. The distrust is justifiably high after being invaded by Russia after months of Russian denial that an invasion was imminent.

Meanwhile from the Russian side, we have no indicators that they want peace. If anything, they seem more determined than ever to find some kind of way to military victory.

I'm generally in favour of keeping communication lines open and looking for chances for peace. Very hard to see any chance as the moment as all there's nothing that can be offered to putin that will save him and I seriously doubt he thinks he can risk his personal survival with crystalising defeat.

I remember reading about this, so I googled it. There appears to be some communication between the two

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63551133

Appeasing dictators leads to more wars. More broadly on a longer historical trajectory, isolationism only gets you dragged into worse wars on worse terms later.

ya good thing we dont appease dictators, might be involved in perpetual war or something.

yea so what I heard is that when a dictator wants to distract from something bad happening he starts a war. easy game.

war is good for business.