Why find it reasonable for Russia to give up even Crimea? They sort of clearly won the 2014 war.
A compromise would be to give up the rest, but get de jure recognition for Crimea.
Personally I doubt it will happen (doesn't have a limit, from neither side :P the function isn't even definable at status of Crimea)
This isn't the 18th century. Russia's land grab in Crimea is a violation of UN articles that Russia is a signatory to. It is considered fundamental to modern international law, that countries can't through force take territory off their neighbours. To approve of this action is to acknowledge that countries can get away with doing it. It sets a new precedent.
So while at the end of this conflict, Russia might still occupy Crimea, it is unlikely that Ukraine would relinquish it's claim, nor that ownership would be recognised by the international community.
December 08, 2022, 09:38 PM
Laser101
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by antaeus
This isn't the 18th century. Russia's land grab in Crimea is a violation of UN articles that Russia is a signatory to. It is considered fundamental to modern international law, that countries can't through force take territory off their neighbours. To approve of this action is to acknowledge that countries can get away with doing it. It sets a new precedent. So while at the end of this conflict, Russia might still occupy Crimea, it is unlikely that Ukraine would relinquish it's claim, nor that ownership would be recognised by the international community.
There is one rather awkward problem though. While the circumstances of Russia's annexation of the peninsula were not considered legitimate, there's also at least some degree of evidence (even from non-Russian sources) that it was supported by a majority of the population (contra the situation on the mainland). This creates an issue regarding how the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity relate to one another, a matter that's caused issues in the past (e.g. Kosovo).
In this regard, the Ukrainian parliament's recent declaration of Chechnya as 'occupied' is shooting themselves in the foot a bit; arguing that ethnically-motivated separatism is acceptable implicitly undermines their own position with respect to Crimea (Russia has the same problem, especially when you consider Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
December 08, 2022, 10:39 PM
Cyclops
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
"Bush II's Grand Theft Autofuel" Nice one...
I'm doing my part [salutes].
Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Biden kinda had to stick to the deal..
Cannot disagree, even though the US has successfully pulled "the other guy" a few times (as well as that other classic "akchewally, first Congress has to approve...") some deals have to stick and this was one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Yes but its kind of too bad they were carried along. had two of the 4 not joined or had really strong reservations it might really have set back the Bush Admin's efforts to get congress on board. I new doubters at the time who were not convinced by say Cheney (didn't trust him) or Bush semi articulate Texan thing - but where Blair is convincing it's got to be true.
Bush (well Cheney) laid it on pretty thick, it wasn't "once again we are asking" it was "be here at this time" and our government was literally "sir yes sir": we get a square deal from our US alliance so when Washinton says "jump" we say "on whom?". I dunno what Blair's play was, there's a theory he'd been mentored by Clinton as a centre "left" globalist and he was hoping to steer Bush who he saw as maybe headstrong but manageable? Certainly, the US has friends who they have treated well and can expect loyalty from. I think more likely the UK, like Australia, was not in a position to refuse.
The longer I study history the clearer it emerges that all empires are bastards, but there are degrees. The present US Empire is not the worst (neither the Gilded Empire 1830's-1939, nor the UN Empire 1945-present [coining these on the fly, tell me what you think]). The First British Empire was not as bad as the Second one (post 1780-"no more benign neglect") and that was definitely worse than the present US one is, maybe Communist Dynasty China will get below them (they already have the body count I suspect). The Klepto Interregnum of the Russian Empire is shaping up as a pretty low period for them. Imperial rump conducting brigand raids for loot and slices of territory.
December 08, 2022, 11:25 PM
antaeus
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser101
There is one rather awkward problem though. While the circumstances of Russia's annexation of the peninsula were not considered legitimate, there's also at least some degree of evidence (even from non-Russian sources) that it was supported by a majority of the population (contra the situation on the mainland). This creates an issue regarding how the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity relate to one another, a matter that's caused issues in the past (e.g. Kosovo).
Although we're in that place where we have to ask "would the population have wanted Russia to invade or were the population just OK with the change of ownership after the fact"?? Previously they had the opportunity to choose, they chose Ukraine.
December 09, 2022, 12:31 AM
PointOfViewGun
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyriakos
Why find it reasonable for Russia to give up even Crimea? They sort of clearly won the 2014 war.
A compromise would be to give up the rest, but get de jure recognition for Crimea.
Personally I doubt it will happen (doesn't have a limit, from neither side :P the function isn't even definable at status of Crimea)
What war was that? It was a case of treason, not war. Ukraine couldn't take much action because it did not have the ability to. It was what pushed Ukraine towards NATO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser101
There is one rather awkward problem though. While the circumstances of Russia's annexation of the peninsula were not considered legitimate, there's also at least some degree of evidence (even from non-Russian sources) that it was supported by a majority of the population (contra the situation on the mainland). This creates an issue regarding how the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity relate to one another, a matter that's caused issues in the past (e.g. Kosovo).
What non-Russian sources would that be? If Crimea was so pro-Russian why would the first thing Russians did was to dissolve the Crimean parliament?
December 09, 2022, 02:27 AM
Laser101
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by antaeus
Although we're in that place where we have to ask "would the population have wanted Russia to invade or were the population just OK with the change of ownership after the fact"?? Previously they had the opportunity to choose, they chose Ukraine.
That's not really true. While it is often pointed out that a (narrow) majority of the Crimean population voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in the December 1991 referendum, it should probably be considered that at that point Ukraine had been de facto independent for about 3 months and the Soviet Union was basically dead; the referendum was basically making the existing situation official. There are a few other events worth considering as well:
In January 1991 a referendum to re-establish the Crimean ASSR passed with a 94% yes vote. Considering the text though, it could be argued that the intended meaning was for Crimea to become a separate Soviet Republic from Ukraine or Russia (although that was of course not what was implemented).
In 1992 the Supreme Council of Crimea moved to plan a referendum on independence, which the Ukrainian parliament blocked. It also adopted a constitution.
A 1994 referendum on greater autonomy passed by a wide margin. Yuri Meshkov was elected Crimean President the same year by 72% of voters on an autonomist/separatist, pro-Russian platform.
In 1995, after a struggle with the Crimean legislature, Meshkov was forcibly removed and deported by Ukrainian military forces. The Crimean Presidency was abolished and the Crimean constitution changed to downgrade Crimea's status from a Republic to Autonomous Republic.
Considering the above, it doesn't seem like the Crimean population were particularly attached to Ukraine, at least in the 90s. Whether or not attitudes may have changed in the intervening years is a different question.
Pew Research polls shortly after the takeover suggest at least acceptance by much of the population. Compare this to areas of Ukraine occupied this year where widespread opposition and resistance was clear from the outset. It seems that the Russian takeover of Crimea had at least some base of local support which is absent on the mainland.
December 09, 2022, 03:08 AM
antaeus
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser101
That's not really true. While it is often pointed out that a (narrow) majority of the Crimean population voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in the December 1991 referendum, it should probably be considered that at that point Ukraine had been de facto independent for about 3 months and the Soviet Union was basically dead; the referendum was basically making the existing situation official. There are a few other events worth considering as well:
In January 1991 a referendum to re-establish the Crimean ASSR passed with a 94% yes vote. Considering the text though, it could be argued that the intended meaning was for Crimea to become a separate Soviet Republic from Ukraine or Russia (although that was of course not what was implemented).
In 1992 the Supreme Council of Crimea moved to plan a referendum on independence, which the Ukrainian parliament blocked. It also adopted a constitution.
A 1994 referendum on greater autonomy passed by a wide margin. Yuri Meshkov was elected Crimean President the same year by 72% of voters on an autonomist/separatist, pro-Russian platform.
In 1995, after a struggle with the Crimean legislature, Meshkov was forcibly removed and deported by Ukrainian military forces. The Crimean Presidency was abolished and the Crimean constitution changed to downgrade Crimea's status from a Republic to Autonomous Republic.
Considering the above, it doesn't seem like the Crimean population were particularly attached to Ukraine, at least in the 90s. Whether or not attitudes may have changed in the intervening years is a different question.
Pew Research polls shortly after the takeover suggest at least acceptance by much of the population. Compare this to areas of Ukraine occupied this year where widespread opposition and resistance was clear from the outset. It seems that the Russian takeover of Crimea had at least some base of local support which is absent on the mainland.
To reiterate the point I was making... Sure the population might have been OK with the fait-accompli - with hindsight, post-justification and all. But that doesn't mean they wanted it in the first instance, or would have been prepared to do anything to make it occur. None of what you've evidenced here suggests that the population wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Apathy or acceptance of a fait accompli does not suggest any overwhelming sense of agency, and certainly doesn't call into question the legitimacy of internationally accepted borders.
December 09, 2022, 03:33 AM
nhytgbvfeco2
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishkin
I am preparing a movement in Spain to launch a lightning attack and take over Portugal because it is a country full of fascists. Then we will negotiate because Portugal cannot win the war and the Spanish we will keep everything north of Lisbon.
I support this. I think I once saw a picture of a fascist in Portugal, so clearly Portugal is due for a de-nazification and disarmament, to give Spain a buffer state between them and.
December 09, 2022, 05:22 AM
mishkin
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2
I think I once saw a picture of a fascist in Portugal.
something you will never see in spain, just saying.
December 09, 2022, 05:32 AM
Morticia Iunia Bruti
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
And don't forget the US has an agency in Portugal. Remember Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...
Some news are saying Russia is building trenches and fortifications at the russian - ukranian border in the region of Belgorod. And some experts are saying the Ukraine will use the frozen ground for a special operation with their armoured forces.
December 09, 2022, 06:24 AM
conon394
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
experts are saying the Ukraine wil use the frozen ground for a special operation with their armoured forces
Some kind raid or such across the boarder if done well might be useful. To the extent Russia than has take seriously defending it boarders. It like Russia can make it missile attacks much worse in response.
December 09, 2022, 08:50 AM
Kyriakos
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Hm, I suppose Russia won't use that other weapon even if Ukraine hits Moscow.
Or maybe that's not the view, which is why US declared it's not in favor of Ukraine attacking in areas not formerly in the Ukraine :)
December 09, 2022, 09:34 AM
conon394
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
"use that other weapon"
Which one?
Quote:
Or maybe that's not the view, which is why US declared it's not in favor of Ukraine attacking in areas not formerly in the Ukraine
That's not quite what the US said it rather said it was not encouraging it but it never said it holding a leash either.
December 09, 2022, 09:45 AM
reavertm
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Russia is attacking civilian targets in Ukraine, so it is only fair for Ukraine to attack military targets in Russia.
December 09, 2022, 09:55 AM
Sar1n
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
In order to prevent a frozen conflict, Russia might need an incentive for actual peace treaty. Stopping such attacks might be that incentive.
December 09, 2022, 10:03 AM
Lord Thesaurian
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by reavertm
Russia is attacking civilian targets in Ukraine, so it is only fair for Ukraine to attack military targets in Russia.
In a perfect world, I would like to see Ukrainian missiles/drones pay a visit to the nexus of pipelines and factories in Samara:
Hm, I suppose Russia won't use that other weapon even if Ukraine hits Moscow.
Or maybe that's not the view, which is why US declared it's not in favor of Ukraine attacking in areas not formerly in the Ukraine :)
Say rather "his last weapon". Not there yet, this bloody minded scum has a dozen divisions to lose before we discuss that.
Ukraine doesn't have the forces to invade Russia, but they can hit targets there as they have demonstrated, more valuable assets (and who knows what proportion of those are irreplaceable?) each time if they like.
December 09, 2022, 11:43 AM
Kyriakos
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
For the record, I'd like to see peace with Ukraine taking back all other areas apart from Crimea (since Crimea is by large majority pro-Russian).
That said, if nukes start hitting Ukraine, you should realize it has already lost due to there not being a return from your main cities being nuked.
And if one wanted to make use of nukes palatable, they'd urge Ukraine to hit inside Russia - as they now do. So not a good idea at all, imo.
December 09, 2022, 11:56 AM
Vanoi
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser101
That's not really true. While it is often pointed out that a (narrow) majority of the Crimean population voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in the December 1991 referendum, it should probably be considered that at that point Ukraine had been de facto independent for about 3 months and the Soviet Union was basically dead; the referendum was basically making the existing situation official. There are a few other events worth considering as well:
In January 1991 a referendum to re-establish the Crimean ASSR passed with a 94% yes vote. Considering the text though, it could be argued that the intended meaning was for Crimea to become a separate Soviet Republic from Ukraine or Russia (although that was of course not what was implemented).
In 1992 the Supreme Council of Crimea moved to plan a referendum on independence, which the Ukrainian parliament blocked. It also adopted a constitution.
A 1994 referendum on greater autonomy passed by a wide margin. Yuri Meshkov was elected Crimean President the same year by 72% of voters on an autonomist/separatist, pro-Russian platform.
In 1995, after a struggle with the Crimean legislature, Meshkov was forcibly removed and deported by Ukrainian military forces. The Crimean Presidency was abolished and the Crimean constitution changed to downgrade Crimea's status from a Republic to Autonomous Republic.
Considering the above, it doesn't seem like the Crimean population were particularly attached to Ukraine, at least in the 90s. Whether or not attitudes may have changed in the intervening years is a different question.
Pew Research polls shortly after the takeover suggest at least acceptance by much of the population. Compare this to areas of Ukraine occupied this year where widespread opposition and resistance was clear from the outset. It seems that the Russian takeover of Crimea had at least some base of local support which is absent on the mainland.
The number of Crimean residents who consider Ukraine their motherland increased sharply from 32% to 71.3% from 2008 through 2011; according to a poll by Razumkov Center in March 2011,[23] although this is the lowest number in all Ukraine (93% on average across the country).[23] Surveys of regional identities in Ukraine have shown that around 30% of Crimean residents claim to have retained a self-identified "Soviet identity".[24]
Seems like Crimeans very much considered themselves Ukrainians at least as of 2011.
December 09, 2022, 12:14 PM
Mithradates
Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future
Exchanging Brittney Griner to Viktor "Merchant of Death" Bout? wtf...
Clear win for Russia