Russia has invaded Ukraine

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well they haven’t had Crimea for a decade. They, and the West, gave it up with so much as a whimper.

Along with Donetsk and Luhansk, so they are already effectively part of Russia’s hand. What would now be up for negotiation would be the territory Russia has occupied and held since the invasion of 2022.

What territory they cede would be up to them, as part of any negotiation

Ukraine did not have the ability to stop Russia in Crimea. It is the West that is culpable here. Remember that the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994 stated that:

According to the three memoranda, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively removing all Soviet nuclear weapons from their soil, and that they agreed to the following:

- Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).

- Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

- Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

- Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

The West sold Ukraine down the river and the appeasement in 2014 dialled in the invasion in 2022.

Remember also that the referendum of 1991: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_U...nce_referendum had massive majorities for independence even in Donetsk and Luhansk, disproving the narrative that the eastern Oblasts want to be part of Russia.

It basically comes down to appeasement: some think that Putin should be given the land he took by force and some think that aggression cannot be rewarded. History tells us that appeasement is a dangerous gamble ....

---------- Post added at 10:47 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

This was not said in the post you quoted.



Nor this in the post quoted:



You may be overdosing on the pro-Ukranian kool aid and believe recapturing Crimea is achievable, and happy to commit the Ukrainian male population to die for it.

However somewhere else (in the real world) there has to be consideration of at least the possibility for some that dying in an ill equipped, never ending and futile war isn’t any more desirable for the average Ukrainians than it is for you from the luxury of your keyboard. How they would extract themselves from that is a good question. I refer again to Pierre’s post that you have not addressed while you persist in misrepresenting mine.

Under Zelensky, they’d need to kill him first.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 ----------



For the purposes of this post only, I’ll concede the point and say it still doesn’t warrant sacrificing every Ukrainian man of fighting age in a war it is both losing and being inadequately resourced by its supposed allies.

What steps Ukraine, NATO, or anyone else could take between now and then to better resource the front line more than ritual human sacrifice would be welcome.

More ranting about unwilling Ukrainians being killed yet no comment on what they should do differently.

[jfman]

Until you accurately represent my points there is no point engaging with you.

But I had a wry smile as you said this to Pierre:

The West sold Ukraine down the river

The penny will drop I’m sure.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Ukraine did not have the ability to stop Russia in Crimea. It is the West that is culpable here. Remember that the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994 stated that:

They had an army of 130,000 at the time. A year later it was double that.

Why no counter offensive in the decade that followed?

The West sold Ukraine down the river and the appeasement in 2014 dialled in the invasion in 2022

and so now is the time to take back all of Ukraine, to the last man, no matter the cost.

I doubt that could ever happen without Western troops on the ground. Is that what you suggest?

It basically comes down to appeasement: some think that Putin should be given the land he took by force and some think that aggression cannot be rewarded. History tells us that appeasement is a dangerous gamble

I think that Ukraine should negotiate with Russia. I ,personally, don't believe it is a war Ukraine can win. (i.e removing Russia totally from all of Ukraine)

I certainly don't think we should be pouring billion after billion after billion.....unaudited as far as I can tell, certainly I know the US senate has asked for some receipts to no avail, into a war that cannot be won.

We should pressure Ukraine to talk, hopefully stop hostilities and in the time after, spend the billions on increasing and re-arming our own armed forces and strengthening NATO.

[ianch99]

Although they are reluctant to say it outright, both John and Pierre seem to believe that appeasement is the best outcome in Ukraine. They witter on about "ritual human sacrifice" and "to the last man, no matter the cost." yet ignore the fact that it is the Ukrainians themselves who are wanting to defend their country. The West is not making them defend their homes and their families.

Ukrainians Stand Behind War Effort Despite Some Fatigue

After 18 months of grinding conflict, Ukrainians remain deeply committed to winning the war with Russia -- although slightly less so than they were in the early months of the war.

Three in five (60%) Ukrainians interviewed in July and August said they want Ukraine to keep fighting until it wins, twice as many as those who want Ukraine to negotiate to end the war as soon as possible (31%). Ukrainians’ commitment is slightly muted from what it was in September 2022, when 70% of Ukrainians said they wanted their country to keep fighting, but the majority still staunchly support the war.

The Vatnik's will claim the West is forcing Ukrainians to die but this is just propaganda.

A negotiation will leave Putin with his current gains and embolden him in the future to make new demands from his neighbours. The opposite of "Peace in our time" ...

[jfman]

There’s nothing Vatnik about the observation that Ukrainian conscripts are dying in massive numbers for a cause that is unachievable.

18 month old polling may say something else, as may polling that is honest about the limited support that the West will continue to commit in the future years of the conflict.

If you are committed to fighting Putin then go and enlist yourself. Otherwise you are just another armchair general playing toy soldiers while masturbating over western propaganda like the Ghost of Kyiv.

We are paying with a few billion here, and a few billion there. They are out there paying with their lives and I, for one, would feel much more comfortable if they had a choice in the matter.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Although they are reluctant to say it outright, both John and Pierre seem to believe that appeasement is the best outcome in Ukraine.

and your best outcome is? I'm all ears.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

and your best outcome is? I'm all ears.

Ian is that naive he probably will come back with Putin in The Hague.

Originally Posted by Pierre

and your best outcome is? I'm all ears.

Even if you think a negotiated settlement is the best outcome, which it might be, it would still be best if Russia understood Ukraine can continue to inflict damage on them and that they can't make further inroads into the country.

A settlement brought about by the withdrawal of Ukrainian aid will only benefit Russia. It's not even clear they would bother with one if they knew all they had to do was wait until our resolve crumbles.

Russia needs to know they can't win this war either if we're ever going to get them to any sort of realistic terms.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Even if you think a negotiated settlement is the best outcome, which it might be, it would still be best if Russia understood Ukraine can continue to inflict damage on them and that they can't make further inroads into the country.

A settlement brought about by the withdrawal of Ukrainian aid will only benefit Russia. It's not even clear they would bother with one if they knew all they had to do was wait until our resolve crumbles.

Russia needs to know they can't win this war either if we're ever going to get them to any sort of realistic terms.

And how many Ukrainian conscripts should die while the West ponders how to make Russia understand this (if indeed, it’s even achievable at all). One million? Two? Three?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

A settlement brought about by the withdrawal of Ukrainian aid will only benefit Russia. It's not even clear they would bother with one if they knew all they had to do was wait until our resolve crumbles.

I didn't say we should withdrawal aid anywhere, I said we should pressure Ukraine to talk.

This conflict is different to so many others because we're all too afraid to get involved, with good reason.

If nuclear weapons were not in the picture, we would have already had troops on the ground pushing Russia back, like we did in Kuwait.

But because we are hamstrung by the Nukes, we'll just pour money into a conflict that has stagnated.

There is no indication that Ukraine has the manpower to push Russia back from all its territory. Russia doesn't have to advance, she can just stay and hold what she has got, what's Ukraine going to do about it?

Originally Posted by jfman

And how many Ukrainian conscripts should die while the West ponders how to make Russia understand this (if indeed, it’s even achievable at all). One million? Two? Three?

Well if we back them properly we can hopefully reduce the death toll but if Ukraine wants to keep fighting then we supply them the means to do so. If Ukraine wants to stop fighting then we of course back them.

I am not interested in discussions that treat Ukrainians as if they don't have any agency. We're in a conflict where they do have that agency and any solution has to involve their interests as well.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I didn't say we should withdrawal aid anywhere, I said we should pressure Ukraine to talk.

Well behind the scenes there might be discussions about what is realistically possible with the understanding that publically the West will not waver in its commitment.

The other thing is we have no reason to believe Putin won't make further attempts even after a peace agreement is signed. What reason do we have to trust that someone who invaded a country won't do so again?

Originally Posted by Pierre

There is no indication that Ukraine has the manpower to push Russia back from all its territory. Russia doesn't have to advance, she can just stay and hold what she has got, what's Ukraine going to do about it?

The priority would be to enable Ukraine to stop any further advancement or great loss of life. Give them the defensive capacity to withstand Russian attacks. Ukraine has proven pretty good at attacking behind Russian lines and continuing to damage them even if they could not push them back.

Getting to that situation at least means Russia has something to think about.

At that point, I wonder if we enter a frozen conflict where the attacks essentially stop but no diplomatic recognition of it being over might happen.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well if we back them properly we can hopefully reduce the death toll but if Ukraine wants to keep fighting then we supply them the means to do so. If Ukraine wants to stop fighting then we of course back them.

I am not interested in discussions that treat Ukrainians as if they don't have any agency. We're in a conflict where they do have that agency and any solution has to involve their interests as well.

Conscripted individuals absolutely do not have agency.

Ian with his World War 2 rhetoric might be happy for them to go and re-enact the Battle of the Bulge while he debates flawed military strategy on social media and internet forums. It might even make for the odd exciting video if they take out some Russkies in the process. It is no less a futile and (in my view) unnecessary task.

Originally Posted by jfman

And how many Ukrainian conscripts should die while the West ponders how to make Russia understand this (if indeed, it’s even achievable at all). One million? Two? Three?

You may be exaggerating for effect - at this time, two years after the unprovoked invasion by Russia, the Ukrainian military casualties are reported as around 30,000, versus the reported over 50,000-355,000 Russian military deaths.

How many Russian conscripts should die while Putin ponders how to make Ukraine understand this (if indeed, it's even achievable at all). One million? Two? Three?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68819853

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...han%2030%2C000.

https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/03/...ine-war-uk-mod

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You may be exaggerating for effect - at this time, two years after the unprovoked invasion by Russia, the Ukrainian military casualties are reported as around 30,000, versus the reported over 50,000-355,000 Russian military deaths.

How many Russian conscripts should die while Putin ponders how to make Ukraine understand this (if indeed, it's even achievable at all). One million? Two? Three?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68819853

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...han%2030%2C000.

https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/03/...ine-war-uk-mod

Ukraine have lost a mere 30,000 but are trying to force men of fighting age back from abroad? Seems legit.

You turn that question round on me as if it’s equally valid - it isn’t. Russia are the big bad remember. Whether they could, or should, back down is a red herring. They won’t while they are making modest gains against an ever deteriorating Ukraine with ever depleting resources.

If the kill ratio was as claimed above Ukraine should be marching on Moscow, never mind Crimea. Similarly there would be no shortage of American dollars flowing in to bankroll it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

I wonder if we enter a frozen conflict where the attacks essentially stop but no diplomatic recognition of it being over might happen.

That's pretty much where we have been for some time. Power stations hit, other infrastructure hit, by both sides.

But no movement in the lines.

We may well be arming Ukraine, albeit slowly but Russia isn't standing still. They have great resources. They're selling gas and oil and they can also re-arm and re-group, and I would think that they can easily hold on to what they have for as long as they want until they are ready for another offensive.