That’s not what I’m saying. Russia having control over the black sea means more for Ukraine than for Russia, as it’s essentially the only route to deliver supplies to Ukraine. Russia has plenty of other routes to continue supplying the war effort. Taking back control over those waters means Ukraine can more easily import and export supplies and it extends their ability to fight the war, but it doesn’t do much to actually push Russia out (except maybe cut Russia off from a quick retreat out of Crimea).
Taking out the Russian fleet undoubtedly would have helped Ukraine, i don’t dispute that, I just don’t think it would have expedited any kind of end to the war because Russia has other options both for supplying their positions and in launching attacks and defenses.
If we believe Ukraine will win in the end, something that helps Ukraine should also help them win sooner. That is the opposite of prolonging as you claim.
Seems to me that although this war is drawing out, the tides are turning to favor Ukraine more than Russia.
Yes, but I don’t belive that. Sometimes good guys lose. And as inefficient and slow the Russian army is, it has multiple times the resources, and don’t make the mistake of thinking they are stupid or something like that, because you would underestimate your opponent.
“The tides are turning in favor of Ukraine” is something we’ve been hearing since the start of the war and I’m believing it less and less by the day.
This is a pretty wild claim, but if it’s true then it’s the best argument for a treaty I’ve heard. If all they want is access to the sea, no need to continue warring over Crimea or Donbas, just sign another lease to the port
Though I’ve repeatedly heard their justifications for annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, so I don’t think anyone has any reason to believe they’d leave if they were just allowed to “protect their naval base”
I’m getting the feeling this is more of a “vibes” conversation though, sorry for throwing off the vibes
I agree. A war usually ends with one of the sides overpowering their opponent. The bombing would have made Ukraine stronger and Russia weaker relatively, but in that process it would have only made the playing field more level. Something that doesn’t happen when the end of a war is nearing.
If anything, Ukraine having control over the Black Sea means they can prolong their effort in the war, not end it quicker.
Yes because somehow Ukraine defeating Russia will lead to the war continuing… what the fuck is wrong with you.
That’s not what I’m saying. Russia having control over the black sea means more for Ukraine than for Russia, as it’s essentially the only route to deliver supplies to Ukraine. Russia has plenty of other routes to continue supplying the war effort. Taking back control over those waters means Ukraine can more easily import and export supplies and it extends their ability to fight the war, but it doesn’t do much to actually push Russia out (except maybe cut Russia off from a quick retreat out of Crimea).
Taking out the Russian fleet undoubtedly would have helped Ukraine, i don’t dispute that, I just don’t think it would have expedited any kind of end to the war because Russia has other options both for supplying their positions and in launching attacks and defenses.
If we believe Ukraine will win in the end, something that helps Ukraine should also help them win sooner. That is the opposite of prolonging as you claim.
Seems to me that although this war is drawing out, the tides are turning to favor Ukraine more than Russia.
Yes, but I don’t belive that. Sometimes good guys lose. And as inefficient and slow the Russian army is, it has multiple times the resources, and don’t make the mistake of thinking they are stupid or something like that, because you would underestimate your opponent.
“The tides are turning in favor of Ukraine” is something we’ve been hearing since the start of the war and I’m believing it less and less by the day.
deleted by creator
This is a pretty wild claim, but if it’s true then it’s the best argument for a treaty I’ve heard. If all they want is access to the sea, no need to continue warring over Crimea or Donbas, just sign another lease to the port
Though I’ve repeatedly heard their justifications for annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, so I don’t think anyone has any reason to believe they’d leave if they were just allowed to “protect their naval base”
I’m getting the feeling this is more of a “vibes” conversation though, sorry for throwing off the vibes
deleted by creator
I agree. A war usually ends with one of the sides overpowering their opponent. The bombing would have made Ukraine stronger and Russia weaker relatively, but in that process it would have only made the playing field more level. Something that doesn’t happen when the end of a war is nearing.