Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

I perplexed how it it being stuck to reference a formal undertaking that Russia was signatory of. One where Ukraine seemly was foolish to accept and not become a nuclear power. More so because given Russia actions in Georgia, Moldova and CHenia it was making clear it a a vary sided view of the sovereignty for ex soviet republics. I did realize formal diplomatic accords came with an expiration date.

The way things developed, it's probably a good thing Ukraine is not a nuclear power, or this would have been a nuclear war now. I doubt that would have developed with as few casualties if anything. And before you say the nukes would deter, how often have we heard in this very thread that Russia's nuclear deterrent is a joke and nothing to fear, if so, imagine Ukraine's. But either way yes, geopolitical realities change. Diplomatic accords are renegotiated and when not, sometimes terminated. I'm not saying its right, I'm saying it happens.

You are the who seems stuck since the action s of the BUsh administration were subsequently repudiated by two different administrations across 12 years.

Repudiated? In words perhaps, what about actions? Hardly. The maidan didn't happen during Bush 2's reign.

A popular reaction against their leader dropping out of EU negotiations... hmmm not sure I see a justification for a Russian annexation of Crimea and attempts at 4 other oblasts. Seeing as theier is video footage of russian troops in those activities and since you seem to think Neuland orchestrated maidan do find me some footage of i dunno US special ops troops in the protests in Kviv.

Yes, that's all it was, absolutely. No anti-Russian nationalism. No US power grab in the background. None of these things. You can opt to remain willfully blind and demand footage for the obvious, maybe one day you'll get it, but by then you will have moved on I suppose.

DO walk through that orchestration please.

There is nothing to walk you through. Read my posts a bit more closely and you will see that.

Becuse I see no particular line formn maidan to Putin's second invasion. Obama made it clear the situation in Ukraine meant no NATO. And provided Ukraine with only the most basic training and minimal military aid. More or less his Administration kind of ignored the situation and figured it was a frozen conflict. Trump of course did little more. BIden changed nothing Until Russia invaded and its clear it initial assessment was russia was going to succeed.

Did he really make it clear now? How? By treaty? If it was clear why not put it on paper? And the initial assessment is correct, Russia is going to succeed. I haven't seen anything to indicate that Ukraine will win this war yet. But it doesn't mean we can't bleed it dry on the backs of Ukrainians first.

Actually I would say no it was part of Stalin's war spoils for the USSR but Its very not part of Russia. IT certainly has no historical mythical connection to Russia and that seems to be the kind of thing Putin like to justify changing borders.

Oh, so Kalininigrad is not a part of Russia now because it was conquered at some point in the past. It's a good thing you are all for respecting the soveregnty of states, well the states you like at least. Such a flagrant display of double standards... but then you have the nerve to accuse Putin of double standards instead.

[conon394]

If the Europeans want to be able to actually supply their own militaries with modern shells they'll find a way to reduce costs. This war has shown that no one realized just how many shells were going to be used each day and that no one was prepared to resupply their stockpiles quick enough to keep up with the pace of shells.

Maybe the high number is kinda trying to scare the EU into more integration and thus benefit from economies of scale even at say the cost of not every other country in Europe having its own small bespokes artillery orders for home industry.

Nah cyrpto conan. They were getting that sweet Bitcoin to protest.

Good point no doubt that why the government is bringing the hammer down on Sam Bankman-Fried so they can bury him him in prison before he flees to Russia and exposes the whole operation.

[conon394]

The way things developed, it's probably a good thing Ukraine is not a nuclear power, or this would have been a nuclear war now.

Or possibly no war at all - seems odd to choose nuclear war as your first result.

And before you say the nukes would deter, how often have we heard in this very thread that Russia's nuclear deterrent is a joke and nothing to fear, if so, imagine Ukraine's.

Yet in fact Russia deterrence is real. There is a reason US and UK aircraft have not swept the Russian air force from the sky and a couple of Polish armoured brigades were not aiding Ukraine in trapping all the Russian troops on the right bank of Dnieper. They do not deter in your offensive war of imperialisms be that now in Ukraine or in Vietnam but they deter and influence how other powers react.

But either way yes, geopolitical realities change. Diplomatic accords are renegotiated and when not, sometimes terminated. I'm not saying its right, I'm saying it happens.

So vague unclear private assurances that nobody can quite produce the same story about but again you stake a lot importance to those as if they never expire.

Repudiated? In words perhaps, what about actions? Hardly. The maidan didn't happen during Bush 2's reign.

On the latter I never said it did. But I don't see it as a US plot so its immaterial. On the former Obama canceled Bush's land based missile defense. ANd layed out publicly criteria for NATO that effectively bared Ukraine or Georgia from attaining membership.

Yes, that's all it was, absolutely. No anti-Russian nationalism. No US power grab in the background. None of these things. You can opt to remain willfully blind and demand footage for the obvious, maybe one day you'll get it, but by then you will have moved on I suppose.

OK err I got nothing. Anti russian nationalism you are honestly telling me a people can't look at Poland and than look at their own status as a stuck in Russian orbit and not say getting the hell out was clearly the better choice? I suppose next you will tell how awful it was for West Germany to be in the US orbit post WW2 vs how great things were in East Germany.

There is nothing to walk you through. Read my posts a bit more closely and you will see that.

I don't I mostly see political infighting in Ukraine and than its leader failing to sign the power sharing deal under pressure from Russia.

Oh, so Kalininigrad is not a part of Russia now because it was conquered at some point in the past. It's a good thing you are all for respecting the sovereignty of states, well the states you like at least. Such a flagrant display of double standards... but then you have the nerve to accuse Putin of double standards instead.

More or less it was spoils of war for the defunct USSR. But you are ignoring my point that oh god no Russia could never see Sevastopol be a NATO base (which it would not be since they had a lease on it) but apparently Western Europe has to mum on RUssia military basiton full of missiles and S-400s etc

[conon394]

Going back a ways

Yes I'm sure that Stalin also believed there was no imminent German attack because someone wrote so... oops there was.

France did fight until their army was hopelessly outflanked and the Germans reached Paris. Then they realized an even more foreseeable outcome. That had France fought on many more of their citizens and soldiers would have died and much more of France would have been destroyed. Look at the damage France suffered, their death toll was not significantly high. Look how the war they lost ended up for them. With France as an occupier and a clear winner. Not bad I'd say.

Geopolitics is not static. Sometimes it pays off to bide your time.

I rather surprised at just how much you value capitulation. I mean we are talking about France giving up in the Franco Prussian war but capitulating to Nazi germany in WW2. And you see that as a good thing? I suppose you tell me the Poles should given up sooner because umm err less destruction or something.

With France as an occupier and a clear winner. Not bad I'd say.

No absolutely bad since it opened the way for Germany to dominate all of Europe and quite possibly bring the UK to negotiations and empowered the Japanese. And had Hitler been a bit less of fool and not declared war on the US also meant a situation were France would have spent quite a bit more time under German occupation.

The simple fact is Reynaud's plans were solid a bastion in Bretagne forcing a siege of Paris and falling back torat the Mediterranean otherwise. Germany would left weak and out of fuel. Italy loosing it north african position and possibly Sardinia if not Sicily. Certainly Germany would have been massively constrained and nothing like the easter front or is conquest of the rest of Europe and option.

[Cyclops]

Going back a ways




I rather surprised at just how much you value capitulation. I mean we are talking about France giving up in the Franco Prussian war but capitulating to Nazi germany in WW2. And you see that as a good thing? I suppose you tell me the Poles should given up sooner because umm err less destruction or something.



No absolutely bad since it opened the way for Germany to dominate all of Europe and quite possibly bring the UK to negotiations and empowered the Japanese. And had Hitler been a bit less of fool and not declared war on the US also meant a situation were France would have spent quite a bit more time under German occupation.

The simple fact is Reynaud's plans were solid a bastion in Bretagne forcing a siege of Paris and falling back torat the Mediterranean otherwise. Germany would left weak and out of fuel. Italy loosing it north african position and possibly Sardinia if not Sicily. Certainly Germany would have been massively constrained and nothing like the easter front or is conquest of the rest of Europe and option.

This is getting weirdly off topic. France was bitterly divided in itself. Their capitulation was shameful and they knew it, but the Ultras wanted to destroy the Soviets Union and were willing to let Hitler do it at the price of their own honour.

France's surrender came because they faced a further loss of autonomy consequent to another protracted conflict like WWI. Its a tiny bit like the choice Ukraine made in 2014 (maybe?), but the cases are so different its not that profitable to discuss.

Certainly Russia's brigandish attack in 2022 has nothing in common with Hitler's insane warmaking in 1939-1945.

[Alastor]

An article making the case for a diplomatic settlement. It's good to see more of those and I'm hopeful that eventually people will come to their senses and sit down and negotiate.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature...-end-it-207095

Whoever is responsible for starting this war, it is becoming horrifically clear that everyone would benefit from ending it.

That a diplomatic agreement is possible is testified to by the fact that Russia and Ukraine seemed close to a deal at least three times. First in Belarus, then in talks mediated by then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet, and, most promisingly, in Istanbul, where they actually initialed a tentative agreement. We, therefore, know that but for the opposition of the United States and key allies, the war could have ended on terms that would have preserved Ukrainian statehood and its current government and even allowed it to join the EU with Russia’s blessing, provided only that it gave up NATO membership. We can also confidently say that, despite all that has occurred since, Russia would be willing to return to the Istanbul agreements if Ukraine agreed to negotiate.


So, what is preventing a ceasefire? The two most obvious sticking points are Zelensky’s presidential decree of October 4, 2022, prohibiting any negotiations with Russian president Vladimir Putin, and the adamant opposition of the United States to any ceasefire “right now.”


Yet, the mere fact that a framework for an agreement has been reached before suggests that the most debilitating assumption about this war—that the parties’ differences are irreconcilable—is not true. In fact, it is the willingness to negotiate, not the terms of the agreement, that now stands in the way of peace.

[conon394]

An article making the case for a diplomatic settlement. It's good to see more of those and I'm hopeful that eventually people will come to their senses and sit down and negotiate.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature...-end-it-207095

Ahh yess who cares if cough Russia started the war it time to talk and cough Reward Putin...

"Russia should also provide explicit assurances that it will not take any further territory"

Did not Ukraine get explicit Russian assurance of such when it gave nuclear weapons and non NATO security assurances from the US and UK - that totally worked out well did it not.

[Alastor]

Ahh yess who cares if cough Russia started the war it time to talk and cough Reward Putin...

"Russia should also provide explicit assurances that it will not take any further territory"

Did not Ukraine get explicit Russian assurance of such when it gave nuclear weapons and non NATO security assurances from the US and UK - that totally worked out well did it not.

Both the point about Russia starting the war (ie there is enough blame to share around) and the one about "rewarding Putin" (lol), are addressed rather well in the article.

And indeed those assurances worked well, until Ukraine (their nationalist leadership at least) decided it was a smart idea to try and join a hostile to Russia military alliance that is. Either way this point is also addressed in the article. As Lavrov stated:

At his press conference at the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2023, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that Russia recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine based on its Declaration of Independence of 1991, which included a pledge not to join NATO. “On those conditions,” he went on to say, “we support Ukraine’s territorial integrity.”

Finally, the alternative to a negotiated settlement is more death and destruction in a hopeless war. Perhaps more importantly the tide seems to be turning even for the US. The US achieved its goals so far, bled Russia, won support for NATO etc. But if it continues, this war may become a costly strategic distraction that could end up damaging the US' position in the mid-term. Biden would be wise not to overplay his hand.

[conon394]

Both the point about Russia starting the war (ie there is enough blame to share around) and the one about "rewarding Putin" (lol), are addressed rather well in the article.

And indeed those assurances worked well, until Ukraine (their nationalist leadership at least) decided it was a smart idea to try and join a hostile to Russia military alliance that is. Either way this point is also addressed in the article. As Lavrov stated:


Finally, the alternative to a negotiated settlement is more death and destruction in a hopeless war. Perhaps more importantly the tide seems to be turning even for the US. The US achieved its goals so far, bled Russia, won support for NATO etc. But if it continues, this war may become a costly strategic distraction that could end up damaging the US' position in the mid-term. Biden would be wise not to overplay his hand.

I see its Ukraine's fault now russia had no agency and had to act. Even though Obama clearly outlined conditions that made Ukrainian membership imposible.

(ie there is enough blame to share around)

No no there is not since the article like all its ilk clearly ignores Russian action in Moldova and Georgia with predate any Ukrainian asperations to NATO where Russia made it clear it does not view former soviet republics as sovereign.

[Alastor]

I see its Ukraine's fault now russia had no agency and had to act. Even though Obama clearly outlined conditions that made Ukrainian membership imposible.

As I said and the article said, there is blame to share around. You can either read the article in good faith, see for yourself its, I believe, reasonable points and hopefully agree that a negotiation is necessary to end this war or you can keep pretending you already have all the answers to points you haven't even bothered to fairly engage with and there is no need to end the bloodshed lest Putin "wins", besides the good guys are about to gloriously prevail over the bad guys in the field of battle like in most other Hollywood movies, any day now.

[conon394]

As I said and the article said, there is blame to share around..

and as I said i find that fatuitous the blame lies clearly with Russia.

and hopefully agree that a negotiation is necessary to end this war

Negotiations on what how much of Ukraine is carved up and just how pointless the security guarantees it gets are. The latter being pointless since the former render Ukraine a state only at the deference of Russia

you haven't even bothered to fairly engage with

What is there to engage with the statement that somehow Russia still just the mink agreement and crimea - even though it has formally annexed 4 oblasts? In this new minsk 3 is russia going to actually join or pretend it not party to them again so its troops can stay in the Donbas?

[Stario]

Ahh yess who cares if cough Russia started the war it time to talk and cough Reward Putin...

Ukraine started war in 2014. Russia will end it. I think in time the Ukranians will come to the negotiating table. As i see it, most of the bombings, cites/villages being levelled are on the Ukranian side/territory...

[conon394]

Ukraine started war in 2014. Russia will end it. I think in time the Ukranians will come to the negotiating table. As i see it, most of the bombings, cites/villages being levelled are on the Ukranian side/territory...

UKraine invaded Russia in 2014 - I missed that.

[StarDreamer]

UKraine invaded Russia in 2014 - I missed that.

Russia has a tendency to blame wars on everyone else and wars of conquest are purely defensive(don't you know).

[reavertm]

Meanwhile, Portugal started harbouring Putin's oligarchs.

https://www.portugalresident.com/por...lose-to-putin/

Any comments, Ludi? 😂

[Alastor]

and as I said i find that fatuitous the blame lies clearly with Russia.

No, what is fatuitous is to still cling to childish notions of good guys vs bad guys. In the real world, things aren't black and white.

Negotiations on what how much of Ukraine is carved up and just how pointless the security guarantees it gets are. The latter being pointless since the former render Ukraine a state only at the deference of Russia

A rough blueprint on what is offered in the article.

What is there to engage with the statement that somehow Russia still just the mink agreement and crimea - even though it has formally annexed 4 oblasts? In this new minsk 3 is russia going to actually join or pretend it not party to them again so its troops can stay in the Donbas?

You will find out what there is to engage with, once you get off your high horse and engage. You are complaining here about sth that hasn't even been attempted. Has Ukraine tried to negotiate to see what Russia would be willing to accept? No, not since Zelensky's "no-negotiation" decree at least. This war will not end until people start talking. The only other alternative is that Russia takes Kiev, or Ukraine takes Moscow and I know which one of these 2 eventualities I'd be betting on as the most likely.

[StarDreamer]

No, what is fatuitous is to still cling to childish notions of good guys vs bad guys. In the real world, things aren't black and white.

One of these countries is a facist imperialist country with aggressive, territorial ambitions. The other didn't even have a fully funtional army in 2014. There is only really one logical choice in which of them started the war. It has nothing to do with good or bad guys.

[Alastor]

One of these countries is a facist imperialist country with aggressive, territorial ambitions. The other didn't even have a fully funtional army in 2014. There is only really one logical choice in which of them started the war. It has nothing to do with good or bad guys.

You are off topic and you have clearly not read the article discussed.

[reavertm]

One of these countries is a facist imperialist country with aggressive, territorial ambitions. The other didn't even have a fully funtional army in 2014. There is only really one logical choice in which of them started the war. It has nothing to do with good or bad guys.

No no StarDreamer, it is clearly you who is being naïve and have to say it, childish to have notions of good vs bad guys. World is not black & white. Sudetenland population you see needed to be protected. As were Finish natural resources and eastern bank of Vistula river.
It's not all simple as you claim to be.
Just don't bring Türkiye into discussion please because it CHANGES EVERYTHING 😂
"It's besides the point that Russia is fascist dictatorship today with clear demonstrated hostilities against its neighbours who do not want to be their puppets. There are no good or bad in this conflict" 😂

Alastor, on contrary I think he hit the nail on the head and you are playing dumb. Why do you try to insult everyone's intelligence in this thread?
Chamberlains and Maersheimers of our times are insufferable.

[Vanoi]

One of these countries is a facist imperialist country with aggressive, territorial ambitions. The other didn't even have a fully funtional army in 2014. There is only really one logical choice in which of them started the war. It has nothing to do with good or bad guys.

Hey facts are off-topic in this discussion. Only baseless claims and assertions please.