[mopsi]

  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.

[arandomusername]

Kherson oblast is for the land bridge to Crimea

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.

[mopsi]

  Kherson oblast is for the land bridge to Crimea

And Odessa and Mykolaiv oblasts are for the next obvious "land bridge" to Transnistria, and so forth. There's always some excuse.

[arandomusername]

Maybe. What's the alternative? Keep the war going indefinitely?

[munksbeer]

> Maybe. What's the alternative? Keep the war going indefinitely?

Isn't that a sudden sidestep of the previous points?

[arandomusername]

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.

[mopsi]

  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).

[mopsi]

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.

[arandomusername]

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.

1: https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/0... 2: https://apnews.com/article/europe-defense-ukraine-united-sta...

[mopsi]

  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.