Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Muizer]

So we're back to appeasement then?

Hardly.

Let's see you sell that one in Bucha. For Ukraine to not become an angry and disenchanted failed state that is a risk to Europe, Putin must lose, and know it.

Antaeus, don't forget that in these recent exchange the departure point is a hypothetical future in which Putin has already lost on the battlefield. A situation where the West needs to choose whether to continue the war in order to make it literally physically impossible for Russia to recover militarily and economically. The answer goes well beyond the Ukraine war and Putin. It's a commitment for the long term to a strategy based on the axioma that the only 'safe' Russia is an incapacitated Russia.

I don't know why it's not clear to all that we could be facing a watershed decision. In particular Europeans should be acutely aware of it. I mean, you can say trying to integrate Russia in the civilized west has failed, but does that mean it's forever impossible or undesirable? If Europe follows the US' lead in Ukraine, they'll answer for us all with a resounding "yes".

[Ludicus]

I wrote yesterday “The vital interest of the European Union must be a rapid stabilization of the situation, to recreate a lasting security balance on the European continent”.

Over the years, I have heard voices (here) referring to the EU as a decadent and irrelevant institution, which only survives thanks to the benign tutelage of the USA/NATO. I would like to remind those who think that way that the problems of European security concern European countries first and foremost.

Dmytro Kuleba stated in Davos that he could not understand why it seems to be so complicated for Germany to provide Kiev with weapons to defend itself against aggression, Ukraine seeks Marder vehicles and Leopard tanks

There is this saga with Gepards, you may need some popcorn to follow it until the end. Those countries who are dragging their feet with the issue of providing Ukraine with heavy weapons

Adding,

Every day of someone sitting in Washington, Berlin, Paris and other capitals, and considering whether they should or should not do something, costs us lives and territories

On 9 May, The French president said, “when peace returns to European soil, we will need to build new security balances.”. Obviously, it’s something that will not be achievable without Russia, Speech by Emmanuel Macron at the closing ceremony of the Conference on the Future of Europe- on 9 May

(…) However, we are not at war with Russia. Because in the end, when peace returns to European soil, we will need to build new security balances and we will need, together, to never give in to the temptation of humiliation, nor the spirit of revenge, because these have already in the past wreaked enough havoc on the roads to peace… We feel in our heart that Ukraine, through its fight and its courage, is already today a member of our Europe, of our family and of our union. But even if we were to grant it tomorrow the status of candidate – the process is underway and I hope that we can move quickly – for accession to our European Union, we all know perfectly well that the process which would allow them to join, would in reality take several years, and most likely several decades. That is the truth, unless we decide to lower the standards of this accession and therefore completely rethink the unity of our Europe and even the principles in the name of which we hold some of our own members to a high standard, and to which we are all dedicated

Zelenskyy suggests Macron asked him to give up land for peace

French President Emmanuel Macron asked Ukraine to give up some of its land to reach a peace deal with Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested in an interview with Italian television…However, Zelenskyy acknowledged it would be difficult to dislodge Russia from parts of Ukraine it controlled before the war, such as Crimea and other eastern territories.

Zelensky did not dare to criticize Macron as harshly as he criticized Kissinger, because he depends on the good will of France.

The article quoted below addresses the imperative need, the importance of the stability to Europe in the long run, and it also mentions (and this is not an irrelevant fact, which cannot be ignored) that a recent survey of public opinion - Link (April 2022) - across 27 Western countries found (see summary of the findings, first page) that on average only 36% support their country providing weapons to the Ukrainian military in the conflict.

The Politico blames the major European leaders, Europe's leaders fall out of key on Ukraine - Politico.eu

Germany, France, and Italy are making overtures to Moscow.

Even as European leaders sympathize publicly with Ukraine’s struggle and in some cases have gone to great lengths to support the country, they also fear that what French President Emmanuel Macron last week called a “humiliation” of Russia could create a whole new set of problems, Western officials say.
Macron also declared that, after peace was achieved, Europe would have to construct “new balances of security” — the kind of phrase that sets off alarm bells in Central and Eastern European countries, where it is seen as code for rewarding Putin with a say over what happens on their territory.
…Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi also said it was time to start thinking about a peace deal…the trio is trying to pressure Ukrainian leaders into negotiations.

For now, Washington isn’t worried... “Of course, we worry about a fracture, but I think allies also understand what’s at stake here”, the US official said.

What is at stake here, in Europe,- in the long run- is the stabilization of the European security architecture-and the stabilization of the European security includes Russia.

Already in 2015, the Clingendael report The EU, Russia and the Quest for a New European Security told us that we had an “elephant in the room” and argued that the European Union should construct a working relationship with Russia to deal with existing global security. It didn’t happen. But if these diplomatic lines of action had been followed, maybe we wouldn't be having this war now, which is getting worse every day.
Interestingly, the Clingeandel Report in 2015 did not fail to mention Kissinger,

Yet even reasonable voices like Henry Kissinger’s argue that ‘the West should be prepared to discuss a concept of order that takes account of Russian concerns and Ukraine’s right to independence’.
Kissinger therefore suggests that the best outcome is a Ukraine that functions as ‘a bridge between east and west’, rather than a Western ‘outpost’, for ‘if Ukraine is treated by either side as an outpost, a new Cold War is inevitable’. Although the EU (and the West in general) is unlikely to offer Russia a droit de regard in their ‘shared neighbourhoods’, something has to be done to overcome the current stalemate

[PointOfViewGun]

It's yet an other "anyone but Russia's fault" kind of post, I see. This continues to be nothing but pointless mental that serves no purpose and has no merit. Russia invaded Ukraine because it was leaving Russia's sphere of influence. It's war of entitlement and Ludicus is defending that war of entitlement for no apparent gain; intellectual, moral or material.

[Ludicus]

If you think so.

Russia invaded Ukraine because it was leaving Russia's sphere of influence

Russia made a mistake invading Ukraine, but the causes have already been explained at length, and are not worth repeating over and over again.
---

I was speaking to a friend who is frequenting the Russian telegram sphere earlier and he told me a few interesting things when it comes to how events are being perceived there, a few key points were:
- The Kiev offensive was not a serious attempt to conquer the city, but an attempt to scare Ukraine into a quick capitulation.

We really don't know. Many Western military experts say the same, but we don't know. Ironically, one thing is certain: if Russia had conquered Kiev in a week, Sweden and Finland would never have thought to ask for NATO membership.

[PointOfViewGun]

If you think so.
Russia made a mistake invading Ukraine, but the causes have already been explained at length, and are not worth repeating over and over again.

Yes, you tried to defend a rapist against a rape victim for she wore a short skirt out in the open. We know. It was quite bad argumentation.

[Ludicus]

In my last post I don't even talk about the causes of the war, I talk about the need to find a negotiated solution,(which is also defended by Germany, France and Italy) and refused by the United States, which thinks it can win the war at the expense of Ukrainian lives. But nuclear powers do not lose wars.
And I have also mentioned the relevant fact that most Europeans do not want to send weapons to Ukraine, as well as the fact that without Russia, there will never be a stability pact for Europe.

[PointOfViewGun]

In my last post I don't even talk about the causes of the war, I talk about the need to find a negotiated solution,(which is also defended by Germany, France and Italy) and refused by the United States, which thinks it can win the war at the expense of Ukrainian lives. But nuclear powers do not lose wars.
And I have also mentioned the relevant fact that most Europeans do not want to send weapons to Ukraine, as well as the fact that without Russia, there will never be a stability pact for Europe.

If only that was all you argued...

[Alastor]

We really don't know. Many Western military experts say the same, but we don't know. Ironically, one thing is certain: if Russia had conquered Kiev in a week, Sweden and Finland would never have thought to ask for NATO membership.

If Russia had conquered Kiev in a week then it certainly wouldn't have been a feint, or an intimidation tactic. Furthermore if Russia had done that they would have won the war by now and proven their army is in a good enough state to be a real threat, arguably that would be a bigger incentive to seek NATO membership, so who knows?

[Ludicus]

and proven their army is in a good enough state to be a real threat, arguably that would be a bigger incentive to seek NATO membership, so who knows?

I can be wrong, of course, but in my opinion, it would work the opposite way.But I don't think Sweden is a potential target of Russia.You see, I don't see Hungary being afraid of being annexed by Russia, although in the past the USSR put a brutal end to the Hungarian revolution.
---
---
The US is expanding its goals in Ukraine. That's risky- Washington Post

Comments by political and military leaders suggest the goal is no longer to drive Russia to the negotiating table but to seek a total defeat of Russian forces. That increases the odds of catastrophe.
Effectively shaping a negotiated outcome to the war will also require the West to put diplomatic pressure on Kyiv to come to that deal sooner rather than later. This includes demonstrating a willingness to turn off the spigot of military aid if needed.

That’s my opinion, is also the opinion of political scientists, military experts, and major European leaders: Macron, Draghi, and Scholtz, who did not even want to get involved in this war in the first place, and only did it under pressure from the Greens and Liberals. Realistically speaking, it’s also my opinion that this war can only end in one of three ways: 1) a regional nuclear war. 2) a global nuclear war. 3) Russian annexation of Donbas. Europeans’ leaders are aware of this, although the Poles are ready to take the war to the limits of folly.

[fkizz]

Russian hush money to gain foreign political influence is basically more than an open secret by now, simply uncomfortable topic.

This kinda dissolves the point of appealing to authority of opinion leaders who may have a conflict of interests.

[fkizz]

Russia made a mistake invading Ukraine

Alright folks, give him some credit for acknowledging this at least.

[antaeus]

Alright folks, give him some credit for acknowledging this at least.

Ludicus stated this back in Feb on the day of the invasion. Don't mistake a desire for peace and a dislike for American-led military responses for an acceptance of the Russian position. That would be a straw man and shoddy debating.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Ludicus seems to forget that Ukraine and Ukrainians decide if Ukraine gives Russia territory, not the USA. It’s not because of the USA that Ukraine refuses to surrender territory, it’s because Ukraine refuses to. This sort of aggression by Russia needs to be punished, not rewarded with territorial gains.

[antaeus]

Ludicus seems to forget that Ukraine and Ukrainians decide if Ukraine gives Russia territory, not the USA. It’s not because of the USA that Ukraine refuses to surrender territory, it’s because Ukraine refuses to. This sort of aggression by Russia needs to be punished, not rewarded with territorial gains.

That's not entirely true. Unfortunately. That's what we would like to be true. But the reality is that Ukraine is a failed state at best, or part of Russia at worst, without support from larger powers. Those larger powers might ask Ukraine to make concessions to secure peace. For Ukraine that becomes a "do we want to be a failed state and lose our jobs/lives/etc or do we at some point want to move on" The precedent of history suggests that the outcomes small countries can achieve must be tempered by the tolerance of the voting citizens of their backers. Let us not forget Afghanistan and South Vietnam for what happens when Western voters lose faith. It's a fine line and Ukraine must continue to show strength and a chance of winning on the field to prevent this.

I don't want this to be how the situation eventuates. I'd like to see Putin gone, and Russia's citizens to decide as Nazi Germany's did, that it's time to turn over a new leaf. My worry is that it takes an existential haemorrhage of historic proportions for populations en-masse for populations to change like that. And that can't happen with Russia. My hope is that the combination of lower living standards, slowly growing internal distress, continual bodybags etc build up in Russia.

[Laser101]

The West has tried to be their friends and it did not work, proved by Putin himself and his supporters.

All that's left to do is to help mentally healthy Russians to leave. Russia as a state will forever be an enemy and peace can only be achieved by continuously weakening it to a complete collapse and isolation.

Nobody get third chances

Very bad idea. Either:
a) It works and Russia falls apart, leaving a nightmare for nuclear proliferation control.
b) It works enough to cause suffering in Russia but the country does not collapse, greatly increasing the risk of someone coming into power who doesn't care what happens to Russia as long as those who made it suffer are punished.
c) It fails, and Russia is permanently coupled to China.

[fkizz]

Ludicus stated this back in Feb on the day of the invasion. Don't mistake a desire for peace and a dislike for American-led military responses for an acceptance of the Russian position. That would be a straw man and shoddy debating.

Didn't know he had said that. But yes I know his logic the acts of the US armed forces in Cold War were a direct command of Kruschev and Brezhnev, with the poor US being a helpless being. We all know states influence each other but to create one without accountability and other as the scapegoat is shoddy.

[Cyclops]

Very bad idea. Either:
a) It works and Russia falls apart, leaving a nightmare for nuclear proliferation control.

The present leader has rattled the nuclear sabre several times in this campaign already. Putin is already presenting, or at least approaching, this worst case scenario. Given it has been used as an umbrella for bloody invasions and illegal land grabs, a fragmented Russia is not actually worse than the present case.

b) It works enough to cause suffering in Russia but the country does not collapse, greatly increasing the risk of someone coming into power who doesn't care what happens to Russia as long as those who made it suffer are punished.

...which again is what Putin is doing, he is punishing Ukraine for its independent existence. Not worse than the current case.

c) It fails, and Russia is permanently coupled to China.

That seems to be the present case already.

Putin seems to be the worst case scenario we're being warned about, except unlike the other worst cases where China runs the show, they are actively invading neighbours on a clockwork schedule that relies on appeasement to gain rewards.

Makes me appreciate China's diplomatic behaviour. They are a much better behaved world citizen. They lean on the laws as in SCS island building and dry runs at Taiwan, but everywhere they have shown patience and a preference for the peaceful approach. Miles better than Putin, the violent, poisoning, assassinating, civilian incinerating land grabbing terrorist brigand.

[antaeus]

When the Soviet Union fragmented, outside powers helped secure the nukes, and negotiate their centralisation.

Of course, I'm not an advocate of this kind of scenario, but I don't think it is worst case.

[z3n]

When the Soviet Union fragmented, outside powers helped secure the nukes, and negotiate their centralisation.

Of course, I'm not an advocate of this kind of scenario, but I don't think it is worst case.

This idea of Russia fragmenting again reminds me of the idea where Trump gets elected and there is a second American civil war. But I very much doubt either event will occur. Also the only country everybody agrees gave up real nukes is South Africa. For the Soviet successor states command and control of nukes was entirely nonexistent; instead command and control rested in Russia's hands to begin with at the time, so other states than Russia wouldn't have been able to launch or use them in the first place. It was a similar situation to the Canada - USA nuke sharing agreement.

Although Ukraine had thousands of nuclear weapons stationed on its territory, these weapons did not really belong to Ukraine. Command and control is a core feature of an effective nuclear deterrent, but Kyiv did not have it. According to the official history written by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, “The preplanned launch codes remained in the rocket army’s underground command and control centers…No one denied that authority to launch the nuclear forces, the third largest in the world, remained in Moscow.”


In other words, Russia retained effective command and control over the nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. Ukraine could not launch the missiles or use the warheads, and therefore the arsenal could not be used as a deterrent. Moreover, even if Ukraine did obtain command and control, it did not have the infrastructure to safely maintain the weapons.

Given these operational and technical limitations, the nuclear weapons in Ukrainian territory could simply not serve as an effective deterrent. They were, however, a valuable bargaining chip. Ukraine could not use the weapons, but it could trade them for other benefits.

If both situations do occur, I guess we'll have an interesting time with 8000+ American and Russian nukes floating around. But again, command and control would rest with the person who has those codes + the respective brief cases.

[Laser101]

The present leader has rattled the nuclear sabre several times in this campaign already. Putin is already presenting, or at least approaching, this worst case scenario. Given it has been used as an umbrella for bloody invasions and illegal land grabs, a fragmented Russia is not actually worse than the present case.

The present situation at least has the advantage that it is clear who has the weapons. If Russian nuclear weapons got on the black market it would be a rather difficult situation.

...which again is what Putin is doing, he is punishing Ukraine for its independent existence. Not worse than the current case.

That isn't quite what I meant. What I meant was that if the Russian public were genuinely suffering as a consequence of Western economic sanctions, then it may very well lead to someone taking power who was willing to see Russia destroyed if America and Europe were also destroyed (which doesn't appear true of Putin).