Russia v Ukraine

[Red Phoenix]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Ah, we will just go round in circles again. They negotiated and said it is pointless, which I agree, because Russia does not acknowledge the basic reality it is an aggressor and negotiations only serve to give them legitimacy as an "opposing side" and pretending to be genuinely searching for solution to something they are the entire cause of.

 

Without arms shipments, Ukraine would have to either capitulate or escalate themselves into creating a disaster that would take the entire region with them in cloud of radiation or something similar. The more weapons are sent there, the closer the day when the war ends in negotiations. There are no negotiations if one side has a clear upper hand, in particular if this is the side that initiated the conflict.

 

 

I think Russia clearly have an upper hand seeing as it's one of the world's biggest powers and they're across the border. So that probably isn't changing. And this either ends with negotiations or it'll be a frozen conflict/continuing war that'll cost NATO more and more in weapons and Ukrainians more and more in lives, with the constant risk of escalation.

 

We've been shoving weapons in there for months and Ukraine aren't winning on the battlefield in Donbas, they're losing. Russia at the same time have already lost their original goal which was to storm Kiev and take over a lot more of Ukraine. It ending some time soon with something negotiated could be a good idea.

 

To go back to the original thing I posted, 3 points (not just aimed at you SasaS.)

 

1. Some in the EU (can also be seen as our side too, thanks NATO!) seem to care about "green goals" when it's Africa being helped with fertilizer but not when they're firing up coal plants and I think it's fucking stupid and complete hypocrisy.

 

2. There's plenty of other things I could post in here but I now don't because of what the thread is like. Further back I posted a lot more often as we know, that's now stopped because we have regular arguments like this. I know some of you might think I hunt around for anything I can find that's against the US/UK/EU/NATO and rush over here to post it, I don't though. I regularly see things against one or more of those four and only post the odd thing. If I posted everything I had an issue with this thread would be chaos from arguing (a bit like it used to be.)

 

3. I don't think posting the bit about fertilizer/EU/Africa/green goals was me showing how I'm somehow special or in the know. It was a pasted pair of tweets. I thought that maybe one or more people that see this thread might have been interested though and otherwise might not have seen it so I posted.

 

I'll add a fourth too : it's saturday and I'm not arguing here all day because I pasted a couple of tweets.

[SasaS]

If I can just add briefly, not directly linked to the conversation, people seem to think all or most wars end by negotiations, they don't, they end in defeat by one of the warring sides.

[SasaS]

16 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I think Russia clearly have an upper hand seeing as it's one of the world's biggest powers and they're across the border. So that probably isn't changing. And this either ends with negotiations or it'll be a frozen conflict/continuing war that'll cost NATO more and more in weapons and Ukrainians more and more in lives, with the constant risk of escalation.

 

We've been shoving weapons in there for months and Ukraine aren't winning on the battlefield in Donbas, they're losing. Russia at the same time have already lost their original goal which was to storm Kiev and take over a lot more of Ukraine. It ending some time soon with something negotiated could be a good idea.

 

Imaging having this on a banner in 1968 instead of USA go out of 'Nam.

 

Ending soon with something negotiated could be a good idea.

 

"I think the US clearly have an upper hand seeing as it's one of the world's biggest powers and they're in Vietnam already, across the border. So that probably isn't changing. And this either ends with negotiations or it'll be a frozen conflict/continuing war that'll cost China and the USSR more and more in weapons and Vietnamese  more and more in lives, with the constant risk of escalation."

[Ne Moe Imya]

I think RP is arguing in good faith, I just think he's displaying a flaw in human nature that makes it difficult for us to compare complex issues well.

 

There has never been, and will never be a perfect society. So we look around at our society and see lots of flaws, and think "we should change this to be better." Which is a good and noble instinct, and has brought humanity from the depths of oppressive regimes to where we are today (in a significantly less oppressive regime).

 

It is this very instinct that also makes us a bit blind to much, much bigger problems in other societies. We see that their nations stands against ours, ours has flaws, ergo there is a part of us that wants them to defeat our flawed country so we can replace it with something better.

 

The problem is that often, the other side is much, MUCH worse. A fact I'm sure RP would agree with, by the way. I am certain that his fixation with the problems of Europe and the West are just down to his genuine desire to see those problems fixed, and not a belief that we should be more like Russia.

 

It's just that this fixation leads to a constant distortion of reality when it comes to the way he describes the problems of the world today, because if you're convinced your society should change, then it's awfully hard to celebrate it as the most just one in the world (even if that is patently obvious to be true).

[Ne Moe Imya]

None of that, by the way, applies to his war analysis, which I think is naive almost to the point of being laughable.

 

Russia will never stop oppressing/murdering Ukrainians until she is defeated on the field of battle - any talk of negotiated settlements, etc. is just delaying their next attack for a year or two so they can learn from their mistakes, retool and rearm. No amount of compromise is going to deter Putin from his course because he personally will suffer zero consequences from it, and he cares absolutely nothing for the poor Russians who will.

[TheHowieLama]

41 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

he cares absolutely nothing for the poor Russians who will.

It is a toss up as to who he cares less about - Ukrainians or his own people.

[Red Phoenix]

9 hours ago, SasaS said:

Ending soon with something negotiated could be a good idea.

 

I'd be perfectly fine with seeing people using that on a banner.

 

6 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Russia will never stop oppressing/murdering Ukrainians until she is defeated on the field of battle - any talk of negotiated settlements, etc. is just delaying their next attack for a year or two so they can learn from their mistakes, retool and rearm.

 

6 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

No amount of compromise is going to deter Putin from his course because he personally will suffer zero consequences from it

 

What consequences did Obama and Bush face for Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen?

 

Zero.

 

Imagine if the US had been sanctioned like Russia have been for what they'd done over the last couple of decades? The biggest problem for the people of those countries I listed is that they're not white Europeans apparently.

 

I'll oppose Russia invading and I'll oppose what the West have been doing too. And I'm really not interested in the calls of whataboutism because we're expected to take this invasion as some uniquely bad crime that's never been seen before and then pretend what we've done has been fine because of "brutal dictators" or whatever shit, whilst also pretending that we didn't stir up any shit in Ukraine at all and at the same time ignore anything bad or potentially bad about how we're responding now.

 

I'm sure Zelensky to many Russians accepting this war is a "brutal dictator" too which makes the invasion fine to them. Same shit, different side.

 

If anyone thinks there's a world where Ukraine are totally isolated from Russia and still "sovereign" because they somehow managed to escape the manipulations of the US and others, then enjoy thinking about it if that's what you like (I mean you'd even have to go back to 2014 and ignore the parasite IMF loan for a start), but it's very unlikely to turn into a reality any time soon.

[Red Phoenix]

A while back if you posted about Ukraine neo-Nazis you could expect to have an argument that lasted a page or two every so often. Now you can simply paste a couple of tweets about fertilizer and off we go.

 

It's almost like the thread is getting more extremely one-sided as time passes. I'm really glad I don't post here as often.

[Ne Moe Imya]

Putin is dropping the mask a bit lately, with his admission that the war had nothing to do with NATO and was just a naked land grab, and now this threat against Germany on his main state TV programme:
 

 

[SasaS]

7 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

A while back if you posted about Ukraine neo-Nazis you could expect to have an argument that lasted a page or two every so often. Now you can simply paste a couple of tweets about fertilizer and off we go.

 

It's almost like the thread is getting more extremely one-sided as time passes. I'm really glad I don't post here as often.

Maybe the situation is a bit one sided? As in, one country has invaded another country with an aim of destroying it and there are people who are constantly willing to bend over backwards to find arguments that it is somehow something else.

 

And when these arguments get dissected and questions are asked, the people cry that discussion is one sided. Mostly because these people never answer questions, because they  don't have the balls to say what they think openly, that negotiations mean invaded country  should accept that what the invader  has occupied or what invader wants to take should be given to the invader.

 

And that invasions become "problematic" only when they are carried out or linked to ideological adversaries, but if the victim of aggression has support or links to the said adversary, then we should constantly examine the culpability  of the invaded country and those that support it, obviously, ignoring any context and history. And throw in some non-white people, just for good measure. And always mention Yemen, even though we don't know the first thing about Yemen. 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

because they don't have the balls to say what they think openly, that negotiations mean invaded country should accept that what the invader has occupied or what invader wants to take should be given to the invader.

 

Some of you on here can keep thinking that this is all about Ukraine winning the war completely on the battlefield and that there's no place for negotiations.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world :

 

Quote

As President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said, ultimately this war “will only definitively end through diplomacy.” Every negotiation reflects the facts on the ground. We have moved quickly to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry and ammunition so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.

 

 

President Biden: What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Hahah. Yeah, you live in the real world. 

[SasaS]

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Some of you on here can keep thinking that this is all about Ukraine winning the war completely on the battlefield and that there's no place for negotiations.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world :

 

 

President Biden: What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine

 

I don't think you fully understand what this means. It means Ukraine must reach a point on the battlefield to be able to negotiate from the position of strength. For this it needs weapons and some big victories against the Russians, because Russia will not negotiate about modalities of withdrawing from Ukraine unless it is about to lose. This is what "winning the war on the battlefield" means.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

If the negotiations are ‘give me your country or I take it by force’ from an invading force trying to take the country, coming back with ‘no, we would like you to just leave’, do you expect the other party to say anything other than ‘no, we will just take your country’. You need to get them to a position where they see leaving as a better option than staying or continuing on. If the Ukrainians see fit to give them parts of their country to save the rest, that’s up to them, but that’s not going to be on the table until Russia thinks they either can’t do it or can’t do it without unacceptable losses. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

RP, would you be willing to do a mock negotiating with me, I’ll play the part of Putin and you do exactly what you think the west should do and I’ll do what I think Putin would do. 

[Red Phoenix]

30 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Hahah. Yeah, you live in the real world. 

 

I try to spend some time in the real world. Some. Anyway the point was that I was quoting Zelensky and Biden who I think are being closer to reality on this than it seems others are at times by thinking that this will end with negotiations.

 

28 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I don't think you fully understand what this means. It means Ukraine must reach a point on the battlefield to be able to negotiate from the position of strength. For this it needs weapons and some big victories against the Russians, because Russia will not negotiate about modalities of withdrawing from Ukraine unless it is about to lose. This is what "winning the war on the battlefield" means.

 

This is from Biden on June 3rd :

 

Quote

Q: Mr. President, does Ukraine have to cede territory to achieve some peace?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you’ve been always fair with me. The — from the beginning, I’ve said and I’ve been — not everyone has agreed with me — nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. It’s their territory. I’m not going to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do.

But it appears to me that, at some point along the line, there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here. And what that entails, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows at the time.

But in the meantime, we’re going to continue to put the — the Ukrainians in a position where they can defend themselves.

 

 

Remarks by President Biden on the May Jobs Report

 

So maybe we can all accept that it's actually a bit unclear exactly how any negotiations are supposed to go and we don't know?

 

12 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You need to get them to a position where they see leaving as a better option than staying or continuing on. If the Ukrainians see fit to give them parts of their country to save the rest, that’s up to them, but that’s not going to be on the table until Russia thinks they either can’t do it or can’t do it without unacceptable losses. 

 

Fair enough.

[Red Phoenix]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

RP, would you be willing to do a mock negotiating with me, I’ll play the part of Putin and you do exactly what you think the west should do and I’ll do what I think Putin would do. 

 

I don't really see the point. I'm not a negotiator and I'm not pretending to be. And I'm not pretending I know exactly how the West should respond to Putin. I'm just hoping they manage to work something out without it escalating. Yes I've regularly said I think there should be negotiations, I don't remember saying what I thought they should include though. That's for them to work out.

[SasaS]

So to sum up, you think there should be negotiations, but you don't know what about.

[Numero Veinticinco]

23 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I don't really see the point. I'm not a negotiator and I'm not pretending to be. And I'm not pretending I know exactly how the West should respond to Putin. I'm just hoping they manage to work something out without it escalating. Yes I've regularly said I think there should be negotiations, I don't remember saying what I thought they should include though. That's for them to work out.

Firstly, I apologise for the ‘real world’ comment, that was needless and I’m sorry. I’m just frustrated by what you post sometimes. 
 

The reason I spoke about doing a mock negotiation was because I hoped to 1) get a better idea of how you think the Western/NATO/EU countries should be acting and 2) illustrate how I think talk of ‘hope they can talk it through’ goes and what it actually looks like in the real world scenario. I’ve long since called them fantasy negotiations. We all want them to have a chat and for there to be peace. Me, you, Saas. We all want that here. It’s just that saying it has no impact on what that really looks like.

[Red Phoenix]

10 minutes ago, SasaS said:

So to sum up, you think there should be negotiations, but you don't know what about.

 

Well you'd think it'd be about ending the war and how Ukraine ends up from that point onwards. It doesn't mean I think I understand exactly how that should take place, the details of it or that I think I'd be good at mock negotiating. I'll leave that for negotiators.

 

And again, here's Biden's own words from June 3rd :

 

Quote

But it appears to me that, at some point along the line, there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here. And what that entails, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows at the time.

 

That's the US president literally saying that he doesn't know what the negotiated settlement will be if it takes place, and that he doesn't think anybody knows.

[TheHowieLama]

They should talk harder. Stop sitting around and just talk harder.

[Red Phoenix]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Firstly, I apologise for the ‘real world’ comment, that was needless and I’m sorry. I’m just frustrated by what you post sometimes. 
 

The reason I spoke about doing a mock negotiation was because I hoped to 1) get a better idea of how you think the Western/NATO/EU countries should be acting and 2) illustrate how I think talk of ‘hope they can talk it through’ goes and what it actually looks like in the real world scenario. I’ve long since called them fantasy negotiations. We all want them to have a chat and for there to be peace. Me, you, Saas. We all want that here. It’s just that saying it has no impact on what that really looks like.

 

No probs with the real world comment. I've also not had a lot of sleep and I think I'd be shit at mock negotiations anyway. Maybe none of us have a lot of confidence that negotiations will go well (at least at the start), but maybe if they get to the point that they're at least talking again it'll start a process off that can eventually lead to some peace.

 

I'd honestly prefer exactly what Biden and other leaders say they want : an actual sovereign democratic Ukraine. I'd prefer it if they got every bit of their country back, worked together as Ukrainians to heal divisions and had peaceful relations with Russia and Western countries. At this stage though I don't see that being realistic when it looks like there's more of a tug of war between NATO countries and Russia, and Russia now have so much of their territory.

[SasaS]

9 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Well you'd think it'd be about ending the war and how Ukraine ends up from that point onwards. It doesn't mean I think I understand exactly how that should take place, the details of it or that I think I'd be good at mock negotiating. I'll leave that for negotiators.

 

And again, here's Biden's own words from June 3rd :

 

 

That's the US president literally saying that he doesn't know what the negotiated settlement will be if it takes place, and that he doesn't think anybody knows.

But Biden isn't saying let's not arm Ukraine because this will only escalate the situation, let's negotiate now to reach some kind of settlement, but I don't know what that would be.

 

He is actively shipping most of the arms there because he knows that to reach "some point", Ukraine must be able to negotiate the said settlement from the position of strength.

[TheHowieLama]

And longer, they should talk longer and harder - it is like they are not even trying now.

[SasaS]

Also, we all more or less know, have a rough idea what Russia would accept at the moment and what Ukraine would be able to live with, with the current balance of power - state of play.

 

Russia would demand Ukraine's neutrality, some restrictions in armament they can enforce, Crimea is off the table completely, they would exchange the occupied territory in Kharkiv Oblast for the rest of Donetsk, keep all of the south they hold and military to withdraw ten miles from the demarcation line on both sides. Referendum to be held (and result internationally recognized - respected by Kiev) in the occupied territories either to establish an independent puppet state, or annex this territory outright. They have not decided yet.

 

Ukraine would probably accept de facto loss of Crimea if it would be formulated without de jure loss, and some form of cultural autonomy for all of Donbas, excluding state within a state status and demilitarization. Neutrality with strong guarantees and no restrictions on military cooperation.