Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Mithradates]

Ok, if some US official who was told by some random Ukrainian said so, it must be true. Sigh...

Either way, they are already not on par with NATO technology-wise, but they don't have to be. NATO is not at war with Russia and isn't going to be at war with Russia, thankfully. This is a proxy war at most, not a direct confrontation. All that Russia needs to do to come back is to ensure its nuclear deterrent keeps NATO proper out, which it does and will continue to do, and that it is stronger than its immediate target, which it is and will continue to be.

The technological gap will increase exponentially to the point where their nuclear deterrent will become obsolete. Yeah, Im optimistic about this, just like I have been about Ukraine and their war against their invaders.

[reavertm]

Please. The first Chechen war lasted 2 years and ended up a defeat for Russia. They were still back 4 years later. Not much of a future deterrent that resistance. The only way to guarantee that Russia won't come back is to destroy Russia, which is not in the cards. Anything short of that is wishful thinking. Just like it is wishful thinking that Ukraine can push Russia out without a western intervention, also not in the cards. So since Russia is not going anywhere and Ukraine can't achieve its stated goals, a negotiated settlement where neither side gets all that they want but enough to have an interest in keeping the peace, is the only realistic option.

Chechnya is not sovereign state that Russia invaded. It wanted to break out from Soviet Union but was not allowed, everyone treated it as Russian backyard. It got no international support, nowhere near like Ukraine is receiving. Ukraine is not Russian backyard though some Russians certainly like to think so. Is not really comparable situation to Ukraine.
It is in best interest to Russia to forget about Ukraine.

[Alastor]

The technological gap will increase exponentially to the point where their nuclear deterrent will become obsolete. Yeah, Im optimistic about is, just like I have been about Ukraine and their war against their invaders.

Optimistic you say, wishful thinking I say. Either way, if their nuclear deterrent somehow is not a threat anymore then the destruction of Russia comes back into play and that's not gonna happen on its own either, nukes or no nukes. In other words, it's not gonna stop Russia from invading, it will simply open them up to a NATO counter-attack, if indeed that's sth we would be willing to commit to even at that stage.

Chechnya is not sovereign state that Russia invaded. It wanted to break out from Soviet Union but was not allowed. It got no international support, nowhere near like Ukraine is receiving. Is not really comparable situation to Ukraine.

You are taking the wrong lesson from this example. The point was Russia lost that war. Determined resistance won the day and Russia lost. But Russia came back. How much support Ukraine is receiving is not the point, at most they win this war, which Chechnya did. But Chechnya, like Ukraine, is a core interest of Russia, which is why it was and is certain that Russia would and will return.

There is exactly one option if we want Russia to abandon its interests in Ukraine, that is to break them, to destroy the Russian state. Again, nobody in the west is lining up to do that. Instead we proudly declare that we will counter Russia's ambitions to the last Ukrainian.

[reavertm]

How did Russia lost first chechen war? Military casualties (according to official numbers, those can hardly be trusted on Russian side but let's roll with it) were higher on Chechen side, it was ceasefire but Chechnya did not get internationally recognised as independent, sovereign state. It remained breakaway republic that Soviet Union did not allow peaceful exit, "western world" considered it Russian backyard nevertheless.

There is exactly one option if we want Russia to abandon its interests in Ukraine, that is to break them, to destroy the Russian state. Again, nobody in the west is lining up to do that. Instead we proudly declare that we will counter Russia's ambitions to the last Ukrainian.[/FONT]

You and Ludicus were asked this question before and I will ask it again: do you think Ukrainians have anything to say in that matter? Do you value what they are saying? Or it's all US, mind controlling poor Ukrainians to fight Russia despite their "best interest" (in your definition).
Or it's just Russian backyard to you, despite they were granted independence by Soviet Union, and you don't give a flying what Ukrainians think and they are upsetting you with their desire to fight for it as it raised gas prices and it's the most important to you, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing for the position against Ukrainian wellbeing?
If so, own it, don't pretend to care for Ukrainians.

[Alastor]

How did Russia lost first chechen war? Military casualties (according to official numbers, those can hardly be trusted on Russian side but let's roll with it) were higher on Chechen side, it was ceasefire but Chechnya did not get internationally recognised as independent, sovereign state. It remained breakaway republic that Soviet Union did not allow peaceful exit, international world considered it Russian backyard nevertheless.

None of this addresses the point I made. You do realize that?

You and Ludicus were asked this question before and I will ask it again: do you think Ukrainians have anything to say in that matter? Do you value what they are saying? Or it's all US, mind controlling poor Ukrainians to fight Russia despite their "best interest" (in your definition).
Or it's just Russian backyard to you, despite they were granted independence by Soviet Union, and you don't give a flying what Ukrainians think and they are upsetting you with their desire to fight for it?

Oh "me and Ludicus" huh? I guess we are a group entity now. Can you quote the unanswered question? Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? I mean seeing the way you have worded the rest of your question, I guess argumentative it is.

Whatever the case, I spoke of the role the west is playing, I spoke of what the west advises Ukraine to do. If the Ukrainians want to continue fighting until none of them is left, well fine, their funeral, but we shouldn't be goading them towards such a path. That's what I said. I will add, nor should we applaud them for taking that path, nor much less project on them our own desire that they follow that path. It's hard not to do all that though, especially when that path benefits the virulent anti-Russia faction in the west and our military lobbies.

[reavertm]

Both of you seem visually upset with Ukrainians resisting. Apologies if you feel offended by that association.

Others addressed your points but I will try as well, you might continue to dismiss arguments provided though (wrt sanctions for instance). No, I don't think destruction of Russian state is necessary for peace in Ukraine, also I don't think Russian state existence is depending on owning Ukraine what you seem to claim along the lines of "Russia will not abandon plans to have Ukraine", also fascist state is not guaranteed to be permanent in Russia. Russian society is not inherently fascist, just have learned helplessness syndrome that allows any political system to happen. Sanctions and isolation on international arenas will have some effect sooner or later. Effect on society is more important than effect on state iny opinion. Russians need to be taught, like kids, consequences of their actions (non-actions here) and learn to stop being mute or indifferent. I disagree with your premises, not necessarily conclusions (that you made with premises at hand).

If you think "we" give Ukrainians false hope, what would you do instead? You have stated what "the West" does wrong according to you.
Imagine you are collective West leader. Russia invades Ukraine. What do you do?

[Alastor]

Both of you seem visually upset with Ukrainians resisting. Apologies if you feel offended by that association.

It's not the association that is offensive. it's your visual interpretation that is.

Others addressed your points but I will try as well, you might continue to dismiss arguments provided though (wrt sanctions for instance). No, I don't think destruction of Russian state is necessary for peace in Ukraine, also I don't think Russian state existence is not depending on owning Ukraine what you seem to claim with "Russia will not abandon plans to have Ukraine", also fascist state is not guaranteed to be permanent in Russia. Russian society is not inherently fascist, just have learned helplessness syndrome that allows any political system to happen. Sanctions and isolation on international arenas will have some effect sooner or later. Effect on society is more important than effect on state iny opinion. Russians need to be taught, like kids, consequences of their actions (non-actions here) and learn to stop being mute or indifferent.

I have responded to "others" as well, I have not dismissed the counter points, when they were counter points, but also addressed them. Don't pretend that the responses "others" have given invalidate my points while my responses don't exist. It's not like that. Your response doesn't even address my arguments.

Let's see:
A)I did not say that the destruction of the Russian state is needed for peace in Ukraine, I said that can be achieved via a negotiated settlement that gives Russia a cost/benefit calculation that would incentivize them to keep the peace. What I also said is that the destruction of the Russian state, as it currently stands, is the only way Russia would stop having interests in Ukraine.
B)Calling Russia a fascist state is just a pointless attack. Fascist states or fascist societies are not the only ones with interests, nor the only ones that wage wars.
C)They will have some effect sooner or later, those sanctions you say, ok. Will that effect be in any way a guarantee that Russia doesn't attack Ukraine again? Hardly. I will remind you that the primary argument here was, how do you guarantee a longer peace.
D)Your racist anti-Russian remarks in general have nothing to do with my posts. I never made such remarks against anyone, Russian or Ukrainian.

If you think "we" give Ukrainians false hope, what would you do instead? You have stated what "the West" does wrong according to you.
Imagine you are collective West leader. Russia invades Ukraine. What do you do?

I have already provided my suggestion in the previous page, on numerous posts. Feel free to go through them. I have also alluded to it earlier in this post.

[AqD]

Russia claims they won't use nukes in Ukraine

meaning they're going to use it and at the same time spreading false rumor like this and allies will 'get tired of helping' so they can catch NATO with our pants down.


What can we do now? Evacuate Kiev?

[Vanoi]

I think that the things you say have been mentioned by more than enough outlets... that forgot to mention that Ukraine, the democratic bastion, shares any part of the blame. This interview is interesting because it presents a different opinion, from a Ukrainian academic no less. And it is an interview, not an op-ed, or other such article. That's sth to keep in mind. But I guess it's easier to try and discredit where it was published, rather than what it says.

I actually pointed out two different parts of the actual article in which they are blatantly telling a one-sided narrative. Such as the Minsk agreement violations. Like how they blame Ukraine for not following but then fail to mention Russia and it's proxies didn't follow it either. Or not mentioning Russia's involvement in the rebellion in the East.

I don't care if it's from a Ukrainian academic. It's a blatantly one-sided narrative coming from a source known for its bias and misleading publications.

[Alastor]

I actually pointed out two different parts of the actual article in which they are blatantly telling a one-sided narrative. Such as the Minsk agreement violations. Like how they blame Ukraine for not following but then fail to mention Russia and it's proxies didn't follow it either. Or not mentioning Russia's involvement in the rebellion in the East.

I don't care if it's from a Ukrainian academic. It's a blatantly one-sided narrative coming from a source known for its bias and misleading publications.

You didn't show that what the interviewee was talking about is untrue. You want to call it one-sided? Ok, it's her opinion, opinions generally are biased. Does that automatically make what was said false though? Hardly. Instead your focus was that this source "is known for its bias and misleading information". Says who? The sources that provide us with unbiased, non-misleading information I guess. Because there is such a thing. No, sorry, I will read whatever source I find interesting and I will think about whether what it says is worth my time or not by myself.

[Vanoi]

You didn't show that what the interviewee was talking about is untrue.

Are you reading my posts? I never once claimed Olga was wrong. Except probably the part about the rebellion.

You want to call it one-sided? Ok, it's her opinion, opinions generally are biased. Does that automatically make what was said false though? Hardly. Instead your focus was that this source "is known for its bias and misleading information". Says who? The sources that provide us with unbiased, non-misleading information I guess. Because there is such at thing. No, sorry, I will read whatever source I find interesting and I will think about whether what it says is worth my time or not by myself.

Again it doesn't matter. You posted this article to try and show how Ukraine was to blame for this conflict. They pointed the Minsk agreements and the rebellion in the East to show Ukraine was at fault for the war. Yet thats not even remotely true. The rebellion in the East was fermented by Russia so you can't blame Ukraine for attempting to put down a foreign supported uprising.
The Minsk agreements were never followed by either side so even blaming Ukraine for the war starting up again because of the Minsk agreement violations is just stupid and a blatant lie.

Btw your "Ukrainian" academic lives in America and is an American professor at an American college. You fail to mention that too funny enough.

[Alastor]

Are you reading my posts? I never once claimed Olga was wrong. Except probably the part about the rebellion.

Ok, so what Olga says is true. Good to see there is some agreement at least.

Again it doesn't matter. You posted this article to try and show how Ukraine was to blame for this conflict. They pointed the Minsk agreements and the rebellion in the East to show Ukraine was at fault for the war. Yet thats not even remotely true. The rebellion in the East was fermented by Russia so you can't blame Ukraine for attempting to put down a foreign supported uprising.
The Minsk agreements were never followed by either side so even blaming Ukraine for the war starting up again because of the Minsk agreement violations is just stupid and a blatant lie.

I posted this article because I found it interesting. Sorry if you found it so threatening to your worldview, but I have already heard your sermon many times before and I'm not interested.

Btw your "Ukrainian" academic lives in America and is an American professor at an American college. You fail to mention that too funny enough.

That is alluded to in the interview. Does it mean she's less Ukrainian? Does it mean she didn't grow up there? Study there? Have family there? No. What does it mean? What exactly do you think you "proved" with this? Nothing, but I guess it gave you a soundbite so kudos.

[Vanoi]

Ok, so what Olga says is true. Good to see there is some agreement at least.

Nope try again. Purposely misreading what I post won't help your poor argument.

I posted this article because I found it interesting. Sorry if you found it so threatening to your worldview, but I have already heard your sermon many times before and I'm not interested.
That is alluded to in the interview. Does it mean she's less Ukrainian? Does it mean she didn't grow up there? Study there? Have family there? No. What does it mean? What exactly do you think you "proved" with this? Nothing, but I guess it gave you a soundbite so kudos.

You found it interesting because it supported your own biases. When I pointed out the narrative was one-sided or blatantly wrong you suddenly don't want to address any of the actual points I'm raising. Not surprised really. You won't defend the author in the article because you can't. You know what she said wasn't correct.

Btw hard to call yourself a Ukrainian academic again if you live in America and your entire education comes from an American university. Congrats on not mentioning that. She's just another obscure American professor.

[Alastor]

If these reports here are correct, then the advantage that Ukraine currently has in negotiating a settlement may already be diminishing: https://nationalinterest.org/feature...9s-east-202721

The invading Russian forces, buoyed by a slate of logistical, numerical, and qualitative advantages, are forging ahead with their strategy of encircling pockets of Ukrainian troops while choking off major Ukrainian-held cities from supplies and reinforcements. Russian troops outnumber their Ukrainian counterparts seven to one in the war’s eastern theater, according to senior Ukrainian officials. “The Russian side managed to gather its reserves before we did. We’re lagging behind, which makes the situation at the front extremely difficult,” admitted Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych.

Unfortunately, there still doesn't seem to be any interest in doing so:

Kissinger’s comments drew sharp rebuke from Kyiv, which has categorically rejected any prospective peace settlement involving territorial concessions. "Mr. Kissinger emerges from the deep past and says that a piece of Ukraine should be given to Russia so that there is no alienation of Russia from Europe. It seems that Mr. Kissinger's calendar is not 2022 but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos but in Munich of that time," said Zelenskyy in his nightly address. Kissinger’s comments earned him a spot in Myrotvorets, a controversial Ukrainian nationalist website and NGO that maintains a running list of “enemies of Ukraine.” Myrotvorets accused the senior statesman of spreading “Russian-fascist propaganda” and acting as an “accomplice to the crimes of Russian authorities against Ukraine and its citizens.”

[Laser101]

Russia claims they won't use nukes in Ukraine

meaning they're going to use it and at the same time spreading false rumor like this and allies will 'get tired of helping' so they can catch NATO with our pants down.


What can we do now? Evacuate Kiev?

Not really? This isn't a new statement, and there haven't been any contrary statements from the CIA (who would almost certainly know well ahead of time if past performance is any indication).

[Mithradates]

If these reports here are correct, then the advantage that Ukraine currently has in negotiating a settlement may already be diminishing: https://nationalinterest.org/feature...9s-east-202721

Unfortunately, there still doesn't seem to be any interest in doing so:

While reading the article somehow I had the feeling that it was way too pro-Russian so I looked them up on the wiki, it says:

The National Interest and its parent company "are two of the most Kremlin-sympathetic institutions in the nation’s capital

It is not easy to find unbiased opinions nowadays.

Russian General Valeriy Solodchuk was almost killed by his own men after forcing them to fight according to intercepted calls by the Ukraine Security Service.

Mutiny!

[Alastor]

While reading the article somehow I had the feeling that it was way too pro-Russian so I looked them up on the wiki, it says:

That's a quote from a politico op-ed. Aka a wholly biased opinion. Not a fact. If people keep rejecting all news sources that don't 100% agree with their worldview they will end up with exactly one source of truth and what happens when that source lies? The national interest is a respectable and long-running magazine. I don't necessarily agree with what I read there, especially since they often host articles from various guest authors, but that doesn't mean they are a bad source.

[Mithradates]

That's a quote from a politico op-ed. Aka a wholly biased opinion. Not a fact. If people keep rejecting all news sources that don't 100% agree with their worldview we will end up with exactly one source of truth and what happens when that source lies? The national interest is a respectable and long-running magazine. I don't necessarily agree with what I read there, especially since they often host articles from various guest authors, but that doesn't mean they are a bad source.

Indeed, its not a fact, but it confirms my feelings about that article so Im not alone thinking that it is pro-Russia.
The Serhi Lapko story doesnt sound right, I think there is more there we do not know about but I believe Arestovych when he says that "the situation at the front extremely difficult", and now there is the British Defense Intelligence Update which portrays the Russian morale on the brink of collapse, so yeah...

[Ludicus]

And how do You imagine that "lasting peace"? One that will guarantee that Russians will not come back in few years or even in a decade?

No one knows, but why not? How can we know that the US will not invade some country in a near future? but it is fair to say that there has rarely been a conflict that so many strategic thinkers in the other camp have seen and warned about for so many years, but had their advice ignored,
Stephen Cohen, a renowned scholar of Russian studies, warning in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces to Russia's borders [...] it's obviously going to militarize the situation [and] Russia is not going to back down, that's existential."; Jack F. Matlock Jr., US ambassador to the USSR (1987-1991) who says the U.S.-led expansion of NATO following the end of the Cold War helped lay the groundwork for the current war in Ukraine. Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with a major war."; Meirsheimer, already abundantly quoted; French-born Russian-American Vladimir Pozner, who says that NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to the Russians, that there must be a compromise in which "Ukraine, guaranteed, does not become a member of NATO”. G. Kennan, known as the "architect of America's containment of the Soviet Union”. Kennan once called the expansion of NATO "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold-War era" that could lead to a series of disasters. More recently, just before the war started, this the famous economist Jeffrey Sachs writing a column in the FT warning that "NATO enlargement is totally misguided and risky."
----

From the news,
Serbia President, We have secured good gas price, oil formula to remain in place

At this time, it would cost three times less and, in the winter, as many as 10 to 12 times less than what the rest of Europe will be paying

Serbia "loves" NATO, Serbia Remembers NATO Victims on Bombing Anniversary
------
From the Guardian, Russia-Ukraine war
The War,

Russian tanks and troops have begun advancing into Sievierodonetsk, the largest city in Donbas still held by Ukraine, witnesses and officials have said.“ Unfortunately we have disappointing news: the enemy is moving into the city,” the Luhansk regional governor, Serhiy Gaidai, told Ukrainian national television on Monday. Witnesses said Russian tanks were advancing towards the centre of the city one blast at a time, razing everything in their path. The battle for Sievierodonetsk is in the spotlight as Russia grinds out slow but solid gains

The Oil,

Nearly four weeks after the European Commission proposed oil sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, EU leaders are struggling to see eye to eye. Hungary has said halting Russian oil imports would pummel its economy. Similarly Slovakia and the Czech Republic have expressed concerns.

Zelensky on the bilateral agreement with Poland,

We are relatives. And there should be no borders or barriers between us. The Ukrainian and Polish nations have not been mentally separated for a long time. So, we agreed to implement this in the near future in the relevant bilateral agreement.

Is it true that Polish nationals will be allowed to be elected to Ukrainian government bodies and even aim to become constitutional judges? constitutional judges

According to the draft law, Poles in Ukraine will be able to be elected to elective positions including bodies of state power and local government, state enterprises, and even to qualify for the post of judge (including the constitutional court)

I couldn’t confirm this. If true, call it a soft annexation.
---
The struggle for the "end of history"
President Biden's Trip to Asia | The Nation

At some point—probably not too distant from now—Russia and Ukraine will commence serious negotiations and the fighting will come to an end. At that time, the Biden administration is likely to revert to the status quo ante, with its all-hands-on-deck drive to contain China. This could prove to be a very dangerous time—even more dangerous than the current situation in Europe—especially if Washington heightens tensions over Taiwan

---
No comments,
American fighters headed to Ukraine questioned at US airports

U.S. officials, worried about domestic security issues, have been questioning Americans at airports as they travel to Ukraine to fight Russia, according to an intelligence bulletin reviewed by POLITICO.
The bulletin also highlights — with little detail — a concern U.S. officials hold: that American white supremacists who fight in Ukraine could return to the U.S. with greater military training. Property of the People, a government watchdog group, obtained the document through an open records request and shared it with POLITICO.
Ukrainian nationalist groups including the Azo[v] Movement are actively recruiting racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist-white supremacists (RMVE-WS) to join various neo-Nazi volunteer battalions in the war against Russia,” the report said.
Farion said that Americans joining Ukraine’s fighters has become burdensome for local troops.
“A lot of Ukrainians from Ukraine that were involved with defense were telling me that getting Americans who volunteer is a big problem because they’re not properly trained,” she said. “And they have to feed them, and they’re not the kind of people they want in the army — that they’re more of a problem than anything else.”

[Alastor]

Indeed, its not a fact, but it confirms my feelings about that article so Im not alone thinking that it is pro-Russia.
The Serhi Lapko story doesnt sound right, I think there is more there we do not know about but I believe Arestovych when he says that "the situation at the front extremely difficult", and now there is the British Defense Intelligence Update which portrays the Russian morale on the brink of collapse, so yeah...

I don't believe that article was "pro-Russia". Much less "way too pro-Russia" as you said. That politico comment was not about this article anyway, it was about Trump during the Trump-era, when if you dared say that Trump is not Putin's devil lapdog you were an agent of the tiny Czar. We should be careful not to commit a similar mistake here. Just because an article doesn't go at length about how the brave Ukrainian democratic heroes are routing the evil Russian fascist orcs, doesn't mean the article is pro-Russia.

BTW the Serhi Lapko quote comes from the Washington Post, the article I shared quotes that article directly. Just because sth doesn't "sound right", it doesn't mean it's not. The original article is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...severodonetsk/