Ukraine conflict could last decades, says Russia's Medvedev

[Occult1]

Russia's Medvedev: Ukraine conflict may last for decades, no talks with Zelenskiy

MOSCOW, May 26 (Reuters) - A senior ally of President Vladimir Putin said on Friday the conflict in Ukraine could last for decades and that negotiations with Ukraine were impossible as long as Ukraine's Western-backed President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was in power.

Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has triggered the deadliest European conflict since World War Two and the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

[...]

"This conflict will last for a very long time. For decades, probably. This is a new reality," Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-warns-west-is-underestimating-risks-nuclear-escalation-over-2023-05-26/

Edited May 26 by Occult1

[Tatetopa]

Sorry, Russia will not last for decades.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

25 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Russia's Medvedev: Ukraine conflict may last for decades, no talks with Zelenskiy

MOSCOW, May 26 (Reuters) - A senior ally of President Vladimir Putin said on Friday the conflict in Ukraine could last for decades and that negotiations with Ukraine were impossible as long as Ukraine's Western-backed President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was in power.

Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has triggered the deadliest European conflict since World War Two and the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

[...]

"This conflict will last for a very long time. For decades, probably. This is a new reality," Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-warns-west-is-underestimating-risks-nuclear-escalation-over-2023-05-26/

So basically he is saying that Russia can't win. Putin is not going to be please. Maybe Medvedev should stay away from windows for a while. 

[Occult1]

17 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So basically he is saying that Russia can't win.

Depends what you mean by 'winning'. Russia can still have some  military success by capturing all the Donbass and southern Ukraine but that won't end the conflict. It will only freeze it if both sides pause fighting. The two Koreas are  still technically at war.

Edited May 26 by Occult1

[jmccr8]

Just now, Occult1 said:

Depends what you mean by 'winning'. Russia can still have some  military success by capturing all the Donbass and southern Ukraine but that won't end the conflict. It will only freeze it. The two Koreas are  still technically at war.

Hi Occult

Not likely that Russia will take more territory, they are stuggling to hold what they have stolen now and the counter attack has not begun yet.

[Megaro]

A very real possibility.   USSR was in Afghanistan for probably a decade, and it was bloody.   

US was in Afghanistan for almost 2 decades, and Indochina from the Ike administration until Ford.  
The Soviets understand a slow, grinding warfare.   

Medvedev made a statement of intent that may, someday, be fact.   

[Unusual Tournament]

As long as Ukraine is a hot zone ready to flare up at any given moment, NATO membership will be on the back burner. Russia have played their cards well. 

[acidhead]

A ceasefire, negotiations and a peaceful compromise is in everybody's best interest and encouraged daily by opposition in the West.  This is a dumb conflict to support militarily. It doesn't have to be this way to resolve peacefully. 

[Occult1]

4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Occult

Not likely that Russia will take more territory, they are stuggling to hold what they have stolen now and the counter attack has not begun yet.

The Ukrainian counter-offensive has been overhyped. I think we should probably lower our expectations.

Edited May 26 by Occult1

[+Nuclear Wessel]

2 hours ago, acidhead said:

It doesn't have to be this way to resolve peacefully. 

What are your proposed conditions for peace?

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

As long as Ukraine is a hot zone ready to flare up at any given moment, NATO membership will be on the back burner. Russia have played their cards well. 

Except that Finland and probably Sweden have ramped up defenses and will both likely be accepted into NATO. Regardless of Ukraine, Russia will have a NATO Finland on its border.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

What are your proposed conditions for peace?

Ukrainian neutrality, a DMZ that provides Russia access to Crimea but with ZERO restrictions on freedom of navigation for Ukraine in the Black Sea, Russian reparations for rebuilding the country, Putin must be held responsible for war crimes that can be proven through evidence.

IOW, neither side would really "win" and even if they were willing to settle, the west isn't going to allow it unless there is regime change in Moscow - that was the purpose from the beginning...

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Except that Finland and probably Sweden have ramped up defenses and will both likely be accepted into NATO. Regardless of Ukraine, Russia will have a NATO Finland on its border.

NATO is geared to defend, not attack. So nothing has changed BUT Russia has advanced

Edited May 27 by Unusual Tournament

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, and-then said:

Ukrainian neutrality, a DMZ that provides Russia access to Crimea but with ZERO restrictions on freedom of navigation for Ukraine in the Black Sea, Russian reparations for rebuilding the country, Putin must be held responsible for war crimes that can be proven through evidence.

It seems that all of the proposed conditions for peace are conditions that are simply impossible for both sides to agree to.

What benefit would be provided for Russia in the case that Ukraine adopted neutrality and enforced a DMZ? Is this just a case of offering to give Russia what they want simply because they want it? Have you considered how this could negatively impact Ukraine? How would Russia be held accountable should they choose to violate these conditions for peace? On the subject of Crimea, ideally neither side should dictate what country Crimea belongs to—there should be a fair, objective referendum that is closely monitored by a neutral third party to ensure that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is not absorbed into one side or the other under duress. Russia should be forced to apologize for the systematic brutal attempts at Russification of the Crimean Tatars during WW2, in addition to offering reparations for any damages caused to Crimea/the Tatars during 1944, the 2014 illegal annexation of Crimea, and any damages incurred as a result of the 2022 invasion.

I also agree that Putin should be forced to pay for his war crimes, but we both know that will never see the light of day. He pathologically dodges accountability—he would never accept that what he has done was wrong. In my unprofessional opinion, he is unable to see himself capable of error. I doubt anybody would risk an arrest on him, either, unless they want to risk war. 

We can recycle these same pleas for peace agreements as nauseam but the reality of the situation is that neither side is likely to resolve this willingly or peacefully while Russia occupied territories within Ukraine. It’s just not going to happen. Ukraine is always going to be looking for an angle from which they can drive Russia out, and Russia is always going to find an angle from which they can victim blame and attempt more land grabs through sham referendums.

Edited May 27 by Nuclear Wessel

[Tatetopa]

So how is it that in our own respective countries, we can sit around and tell the Russians and the Ukrainians what they should do?  And why do we think our uninformed solutions would even work? A lot of us thought Ukrainians and Russians were the same thing until a year ago.  

JMO, but I think Putin was considered a stable well known quantity  by NATO until this invasion. I don't think there was any desire to start a war and do a regime change just to get rid of him. Regime change leads to instability, unknowns, and increased tension.   

A stable, predictable adversary provides politics with just enough unease to manipulate people into things like big defense budgets, small personal sacrifices and voting for the party that can protect them.  Most countries' leaders benefit from this strategy. 

All of a sudden, Putin did not want relatively peaceful continuity, but decided he would gain by upsetting the balance.  At this point, it might be Russians that are more desirous of a regime change.

[Ajay0]

Ukraine conflict could last for decades or it can end in a few minutes through a nuclear holocaust wiping out Russia, U.S. and Nato.

It is ridiculously sad and criminal on the part of the UN to not take appropriate steps to defuse the conflict proactively and prevent such worse case scenarios. It was created to prevent such conflicts in the first place through initiating proper diplomatic channels and dialogue.

Edited May 27 by Ajay0

[Occult1]

15 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

What are your proposed conditions for peace?

The conditions for ending the conflict have already been laid down by Russia:

 

1. Ukraine will not join NATO or the EU

2. Ukraine returns to neutral status

3. Recognition of Russia's territorial gains

Edited May 27 by Occult1

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 minute ago, Occult1 said:

The conditions for ending the conflict have already been laid down by Russia:

 

1. Ukraine will not join NATO or the EU

2. Ukraine returns to neutral status

3. Recognition of Russia's territorial gains

How do the first two benefit both parties? If you are going to cite a buffer zone or an attempt to prevent NATO encroachment, do be mindful that it's unlikely that such is feasible anymore, considering Finland's admission into NATO.

Additionally, what measures would be emplaced to ensure that Russia wouldn't attempt further land grabs, especially since we now have Crimea (2014), Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk (2022) tentatively being recognized as Russian territory?

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

The conditions for ending the conflict have already been laid down by Russia:

 

1. Ukraine will not join NATO or the EU

2. Ukraine returns to neutral status

3. Recognition of Russia's territorial gains

Hi Occult

Russia is in no position to lay down any conditions they illegally invaded a free country. Highly unlikely Russia could hold out for decades in a conflict, at best a decade which is still highly unlikely. The longer this conflict lasts the greater potential for Russia to collapese from within.

Prigozhin is already putting up posters for his bid for Putin's job in the next years election so thete is internal division happening right now.

[Occult1]

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

How do the first two benefit both parties? If you are going to cite a buffer zone or an attempt to prevent NATO encroachment, do be mindful that it's unlikely that such is feasible anymore, considering Finland's admission into NATO.

Additionally, what measures would be emplaced to ensure that Russia wouldn't attempt further land grabs, especially since we now have Crimea (2014), Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk (2022) tentatively being recognized as Russian territory?

 

Ukraine is different from Finland. It's more than just preventing a NATO encroachment.  It's a cultural issue. Russia sees the population in the annexed territories as no different than it's own.

They were ready to step in and prevent Ukraine from becoming entirely westernized, the Russian culture destroyed, and yet another NATO springboard for a potential military campaign against Moscow.

Edited May 27 by Occult1

[jmccr8]

35 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

 

Ukraine is different from Finland. It's more than just preventing a NATO encroachment.  It's a cultural issue. Russia sees the population in the annexed territories as no different than it's own.

They were ready to step in and prevent Ukraine from becoming entirely westernized, the Russian culture destroyed, and yet another NATO springboard for a potential military campaign against Moscow.

Hi Occult

 

Poor justification as the Ukraine is a free and independent country, Russia has no say in what the Ukraine can do and most of tbe world sees and understannds this.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

31 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Russia sees the population in the annexed territories as no different than it's own.

And?

38 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

They were ready to step in and prevent Ukraine from becoming entirely westernized,

That's not for them to decide. Ukraine had its own reasons for pursuing and adopting a more Westernized system.

Quote

the Russian culture destroyed,

and yet another NATO springboard for a potential military campaign against Moscow.

And because of their distorted perception and threatening security developments, they forced surrounding countries to apply for NATO membership, bringing NATO geographically closer to Russia, and shooting themselves in the foot, militarily. 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

@Occult1 Look at this map I drew on to show a few of many different angles of attack that NATO currently has on Moscow, if they wanted to launch a campaign. Red is for land-to-land intermediate range missile attacks, blue could be sea-to-land missile attacks, they could station military concentrations on the border of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Latvia - push into Belarus from Poland, etc.

Obviously this is a very rough sketch but the whole Ukraine as a buffer rhetoric is nonsense. It's a case of real vs imagined security concerns. 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Occult1 said:

Russia sees the population in the annexed territories as no different than it's own.

I see the Russian people as no different from Americans deep down inside.  They are our brothers and sisters.  Therefore we are justified in overthrowing the Russian government so that the Russians are free to be like us whether they want to or not?

[+Hammerclaw]

The Russian population is crashing from declining birthrates. The war is exacerbating the problem and it will only get worse. This is the last generation Russia has (barely!) sufficient manpower to fight a war of conquest. This war probably ends in ten months, not ten years or more.  Putin certainly won't last ten more years.