Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Cyclops]

Garbage? By your thinking, Putin starting this war means that Ukraine invading Russia proper is also on the table. Ok, sure maybe it is, but you actually believe Ukraine bombing Russian cities won't lead to an escalation of this conflict? Because this was the point. I did not say Russia can't lose the Crimea, I even entertained that idea earlier in this topic, I did not say Putin will need to hide behind anything either, what does Putin care about what we, his enemies, consider just. I said very clearly and very simply "an invasion of the Crimea would lead to an escalation of this conflict." That's all I said. That is what you are disputing.

I disagree, Putin illegally occupying Crimea is an ongoing illegal act that Ukraine had to suck up because they were too weak to challenge it. They got stronger, in part because Putin has wrecked the Russian military, and now its back on the table.

There's no "it cannot be discussed" and "its an escalation because we drew a line under it" thats Homer Simpson level logic and its garbage.

The pragmatic case is might makes right: Russia lacks the might right now.

The legal case is under international law Russia needs to GTFO now.

The doomsday case is 'they will nuke everyone if we done construct a win for them because Putin promised everyone".

Its a little bizarre that the regime claiming "Nazi jew sorcerors need to be expunged because their ethnicity doesn't exist" should be awarded land "coz its been ten years, c'mon! And they really want it". There's no magic in the number 10.

Russia started this war. They may have lost it before it begun. Its not for the US to make up for Putin's shortfall in ability. Its not up the US to police Ukraine's desire for revenge beyond the minimum of restraining outright war crimes. Russia might count itself lucky if the US exercises such restraint.

So far the actual escalation has been more and more assets thrown away and older and older tanks rolled out. Zero nukes despite endless red lines. Its not escalating.

Are you arguing "this time he really really really means it"? Thats a garbage argument.

[Kyriakos]

Occupying an area illegally can lead to a frozen state of international pariah status for the occupied region. A good example is north Cyprus, which isn't recognized by anyone other than its occupier.
It's "interesting" that it also happens to be a member of Nato, as in that it doesn't really promote the argument about Crimea.
That said, the similarities between Russia and Turkey do not end there, though at least Russia is a major power and some caution is advisable.

[Alastor]

@Cyclops
You are not understanding my point. You are talking about legalities and nukes. Neither of which I mentioned. Legalities mean little in geopolitics. You yourself said might makes right. So your point that Russia has to GTFO is moot. Russia will leave only when forced out. But forcing Russia out requires the use of... force, an invasion of the Crimea will escalate the conflict in that it will spread this war to yet another area and invite an even stronger response from Russia. Not a nuclear one necessarily, it can be a conventional one too, Russia hasn't fully mobilised, it hasn't even officially declared war. Arguably, that's because it's not politically viable currently, but that may change once the Crimea is invaded.

I will say again, the argument was "an invasion of the Crimea will escalate the conflict". Not an invasion of the Crimea is legal or right or just or whatever else.

[PointOfViewGun]

Occupying an area illegally can lead to a frozen state of international pariah status for the occupied region. A good example is north Cyprus, which isn't recognized by anyone other than its occupier.
It's "interesting" that it also happens to be a member of Nato, as in that it doesn't really promote the argument about Crimea.
That said, the similarities between Russia and Turkey do not end there, though at least Russia is a major power and some caution is advisable.

By the standards people are utilizing here Greece should recognize the island as Turkish.

[Cyclops]

@Cyclops
You are not understanding my point. You are talking about legalities and nukes. Neither of which I mentioned. Legalities mean little in geopolitics. You yourself said might makes right. So your point that Russia has to GTFO is moot. Russia will leave only when forced out. But forcing Russia out requires the use of... force, an invasion of the Crimea will escalate the conflict in that it will spread this war to yet another area and invite an even stronger response from Russia. Not a nuclear one necessarily, it can be a conventional one too, Russia hasn't fully mobilised, it hasn't even officially declared war. Arguably, that's because it's not politically viable currently, but that may change once the Crimea is invaded.

I will say again, the argument was "an invasion of the Crimea will escalate the conflict". Not an invasion of the Crimea is legal or right or just or whatever else.

...and I an saying it's not an escalation, the war is already there. It's in the Baltic, it's in Poland, in the Black Sea and deep inside actual Russian territory not just occupied Ukraine.

If Russian escalation was more than words we'd be at nuclear war now.

Warnings about escalation are simply not convincing. Russia already escalated. It went badly for them.

Ukraine retaking its own territory which is also "very important to their strategic interests" is in no way an escalation.

Kyiv was hit with a decapitation strike, a strike on Moscow would not be an escalation, it would be a proportionate response.Crimea is occupied, retaking it is a proportionate response.

I'm sorry you attempts to make a point here do not make sense to me at all. You suggest Russian attacks are not an escalation but somehow unchangeable fact, but Ukranian counterattacks are somehow an escalation. It's garbage reasoning.

[Alastor]

...and I an saying it's not an escalation, the war is already there. It's in the Baltic, it's in Poland, in the Black Sea and deep inside actual Russian territory not just occupied Ukraine.

Then we are not speaking the same language. And no the war is not already in all those places, this is cheap sensationalism. The war is not in those places and I sure damn hope it doesn't get to those places. You are trying to say those areas are affected by the war perhaps, but that doesn't mean the war is there.

The argument that because there is a conflict already there can be no further escalation is simply nonsensical. A Ukrainian invasion of the Crimea would be an escalation. A renewed attempt by Russia to capture Kiev would also be an escalation. This is not about taking sides, it is just a fact.

[conon394]

Then we are not speaking the same language. And no the war is not already in all those places, this is cheap sensationalism. The war is not in those places and I sure damn hope it doesn't get to those places. You are trying to say those areas are affected by the war perhaps, but that doesn't mean the war is there.

The argument that because there is a conflict already there can be no further escalation is simply nonsensical. A Ukrainian invasion of the Crimea would be an escalation. A renewed attempt by Russia to capture Kiev would also be an escalation. This is not about taking sides, it is just a fact.

You are not making sense. Russia launched a war to do what it failed to do in 2014 seize Ukrainian territory from Kharkiv to Odessa and reduce it to a land locked puppet state. It has failed in that bid so far. Attempting its (Putin's) maximum war aims again is not escalation but just what it wants to achieve. Same thing seeing as Ukrain as not agreed to Russian land grabs in any form attempting to take back its territory is not escalation - its just the war they are fighting.

[Alastor]

You are not making sense. Russia launched a war to do what it failed to do in 2014 seize Ukrainian territory from Kharkiv to Odessa and reduce it to a land locked puppet state. It has failed in that bid so far. Attempting its (Putin's) maximum war aims again is not escalation but just what it wants to achieve. Same thing seeing as Ukrain as not agreed to Russian land grabs in any form attempting to take back its territory is not escalation - its just the war they are fighting.

Realities change, of course it's an escalation if Russia launches another bid for eg Kiev now. Conflicts go through active and less active phases all the time, phases of escalation and de-escalation. No conflict can retain a consistent level of intensity at all times. At least no reasonably protracted conflict can. I really can't understand how sth so obvious is subject to debate, but I guess here we are.

[conon394]

Realities change, of course it's an escalation if Russia launches another bid for eg Kiev now. Conflicts go through active and less active phases all the time, phases of escalation and de-escalation. No conflict can retain a consistent level of intensity at all times. At least no reasonably protracted conflict can. I really can't understand how sth so obvious is subject to debate, but I guess here we are.

The thing is you are confusing Political aims with with military activity. Putin has clearly never deescalated his ultimate political goals. That he has had to to because of his own inept planning and underwhelming military reduce his immediate military attempts says nothing about his goals politically which given his annexations of places he does not control are the same. An advance toward Kyiv is not escalations since Russia would just be trying again something that was in its original war aim. Again just as a and Ukrainian advance on Crimea is not escalation since they unlike you have not accepted it as a done deal.

[Alastor]

The thing is you are confusing Political aims with with military activity. Putin has clearly never deescalated his ultimate political goals. That he has had to to because of his own inept planning and underwhelming military reduce his immediate military attempts says nothing about his goals politically which given his annexations of places he does not control are the same. An advance Kyiv is not escalations since Russia would just be trying again something that was in its original war aim.

An invasion of the Crimea would be a military activity... this is some mental gymnastics you are engaging in here. Worse, it's wasted on a non-issue.

[Ludicus]

Legalities mean little in geopolitics..

In doubt, ask the US.
Edit-It’s always the same old story
Centrist DC think tank: US should threaten war, regime change.

It seems incredible that anyone in Washington still floats the options of war and regime change 20 years after the invasion of Iraq showed how disastrous these policies are, but there has been no real learning from the crime of the Iraq war. One of the main reasons why Washington hasn’t learned from the Iraq war is that there was never any accountability for any of its architects and cheerleaders, and the incentives in our debates still tend to favor aggressive and militarized policies. Instead of repudiating wars for regime change, many people in Washington have no problem using the same fatally flawed policies against other countries… Regime change is a morally and strategically bankrupt idea, and it is a disgrace for the U.S. that it is bandied about Washington as if it were a serious policy option. If Americans want to have a saner and more peaceful foreign policy, one of the first things that needs to happen is to banish regime change from the policy discussion once and for all.

----
The arrest warrant issued by the ICC against Putin has made the road to peace more difficult. That is the only practical effect it has. And in the case of peace negotiations, are they possible with a pending arrest warrant? Of course not. And will the ICC withdraw it? That would be even more ridiculous. We are on a fast path to the total destruction of Ukraine, and perhaps to a world war, which will probably be nuclear. No great power will allow itself to be defeated by another great power if it has nuclear weapons. Even the Rand Corporation knows this.
Consequences of the War in Ukraine: The End and Beyond

If Russian forces appear to be crumbling, should the West intervene to force Ukraine into negotiations, in order to head off a desperate nuclear attack?
On the other hand, if the possibility of a Ukrainian collapse seems increasingly likely, what are the West's options? Direct military intervention seems unlikely. Does the West pull the plug on continuing support and oblige Ukraine to negotiate, accepting the best deal it can get? Does the West have any residual obligation to the Ukrainian people?
No one wants to see a rerun of the debacle in Kabul. If Kyiv is about to fall, should the West try to impose an immediate ceasefire, one that gives time for Ukrainian soldiers, security personnel, and government officials to leave the country? What military equipment needs to be recovered or destroyed? What about civilians who want to leave? Is the West prepared to receive millions of additional Ukrainian refugees? Or should the West seek a geographic division that leaves a rump Ukrainian state where soldiers and civilians can regroup? How, and how long, could such an enclave be protected.

It is very dangerous to ask so many questions, and not be sure of anything, especially when the Ukrainians are encouraged to move towards a point of no return, which will inevitably lead to the total destruction of Ukraine, or to a world war. This knowing that the Americans do not care that much about Ukraine, they are not even willing to fight and die for Ukraine. For the Russians they have made it clear it's an existential threat. To say as I have heard that the Russians have already lost the war, even if they use nuclear weapons, is a statement of infinite stupidity.

[conon394]

It is very dangerous to ask so many questions, and not be sure of anything, especially when the Ukrainians are encouraged to move towards a point of no return, which will inevitably lead to the total destruction of Ukraine, or to a world war. This knowing that the Americans do not care that much about Ukraine, they are not even willing to fight and die for Ukraine. For the Russians they have made it clear it's an existential threat. To say as I have heard that the Russians have already lost the war, even if they use nuclear weapons, is a statement of infinite stupidity.

Wow it cool if you get to declare your somewhat failed war of aggression and existential threat and than of course never have face the option of you known just leaving another country. Nixon and Kissinger were such rubes they should have simply said the fall of South Vietnam was an existential threat and nuked the North back to the stone age obviously they had no agency as Chinese and Soviet support for the North forced their hand.

----

In doubt, ask the US.
Edit-It’salways the same old story
Centrist DC think tank: US shouldthreaten war, regime change.

And this impacts the USresponse to a unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukrainehow????????????????????????????????????

----

The arrest warrant issued by the ICC against Putin has made the road to peace more difficult. That is the only practical effect it has. And in the case of peace negotiations

Umm Putin does seem to seeking peace negotiation what fantasy world are you living in.

[conon394]

An invasion of the Crimea would be a military activity... this is some mental gymnastics you are engaging in here. Worse, it's wasted on a non-issue.

Yes you are right Ukraine's attempts to reclaim its territory is not escalation.

[Alastor]

Yes you are right Ukraine's attempts to reclaim its territory is not escalation.

I see, we have gotten to kindergarten levels of debate now. Ok, let's move on.

[conon394]

Really thanks for the snark but simply put you are wrong the only real escalation on the table is either Russia using nuclear weapons or Ukraine invading actual Russian territory. Russia returning to offensive at any of its initial war goals (since there is no indication Putin ever stopped having them or has declares such) is not an escalation nor is Ukraine attempting to recover any of it territory as recognized internationally and by Russia under the Budapest accords)

[reavertm]

War between Russia and Ukraine started not last year but when Russia invaded Crimea. Conflict froze for a while but is back with Russian renewed offensive last year.
Alastor, by your own logic (any offensive activity is escalation) Russia is escalating this war with every attempt to take Bakhmut, every shell shot, every rocket launched. I wonder why you are not blaming Putin every day for escalating.
Very inconsistent of you.

[Alastor]

War between Russia and Ukraine started not last year but when Russia invaded Crimea. Conflict froze for a while but is back with Russian renewed offensive last year.
Alastor, by your logic Russia is escalating this war with every attempt to take Bakhmut, every shell shot, every rocket launched. I wonder why you are not blaming Putin every day for escalating.
Very inconsistent of you.

For a start because he is not doing it with my money.

[reavertm]

Ok, gladly we are over moral arguments now and back to "higher prices of gas and cost of tuna can".
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist..
And actually he is doing it with your and mine gas and oil money. Let me remind the money you were gladly giving as I remember you were opposed to sanctions, were you not?

[Kyriakos]

The EU isn't known to be above money. It's why it was trying to get peace with concessions, before US saw a massive opportunity to sell a trillion dollars worth of weapons and return to Europe via the eastern european countries that entered in 2004 (and hate Russia; most were in the soviet union).

[Alastor]

Ok, gladly we are over moral arguments now and back to "higher prices of gas and cost of tuna can".
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist..
And actually he is doing it for your and mine gas and oil money. Let me remind the money you were gladly giving as I remember you were opposed to sanctions, were you not?

When did I make a moral argument? I constantly discuss facts and events and avoid moralisations, do quote me if you want making a moral argument.
Also if you remember what I accused Zelensky of, that was ingratitude. Hard to accuse Putin of that when we are on the other side of this conflict.
Finally, we were not giving Russia that money for free, we were buying sth of great value to us with that money, that is natural resources and cheap energy. There is a "slight" difference here. Maybe it's hard to see for someone with such a clear anti-Russian bias, but there is one alright.