Ukraine

[Paul G.]

Re: Ukraine

On the dangers of escalation when confronted by a nuclear power, please spend an hour watching Perun’s video that I linked to in my post #12464, above.

Wars do not “always end at the negotiating table”. WW2 ended with the unconditional surrender of Germany and the unconditional surrender of Japan. All that is needed for Ukraine to win is for it not to be worthwhile for Russia to invade and try to hold Ukrainian territory, as Gypsie says in his post #12492.

Any “negotiations” that trade land for peace will encourage the next war by rewarding irredentism. See the Kenyan Ambassador’s speech to the UN at the start of the war. The post-1945 global order depends on borders being sacrosanct even where they are clearly in the wrong place, because the alternative is endless war.

For the sake of brevity I was being overly simplistic, but there has to be a willingness to end hostilities. Usually it comes when it's painfully obvious the numbers dont add up. Its a fact that none us commoners know what is happening at high levels, but we do know what the media is saying which is why I find narratives unhelpful. Your argument about borders reflects the sentiments of the day, during the first gulf war we were told that borders were sacrosanct and must be respected, some years later we were told the opposite when Nato bombed Kosovo it was all about human rights, self determination, that borders didnt matter and so on. Now borders are top of the pops again.

Historically wars in Europe did end up in trading land for peace but the rumblings along ethnic, cultural and racial lines eventually surface along with territorial aspirations, this is why there has been a deliberate and mostly successful effort to remove those influences politically though the creation of the EU. How long can it last?? Brexit on one level was the expression of cultural rebellion against Brussels, and we can see the rise of populism and a bit of fracturing throughout the EU experiment. Getting back to Ukraine, its criminal to not make efforts to end it through negotiation.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Ukraine

Getting back to Ukraine, its criminal to not make efforts to end it through negotiation.

OK, how would you negotiate with that lying war criminal with any hope for an equitable, long-lasting agreement?
He has already refuted the agreement signed by a previous Russian President.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Re: Ukraine

There’s a difference between invading a country with the intention of adding it to your own country permanently, which is what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine, or ruling it as a colony, which is what Britain did to many places before 1939, and invading a country in order to carry out “regime change” and then withdraw, which is what the United States has been doing in Panama, St Kitts, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think my point stands.

[LeeG]

Re: Ukraine

There’s a difference between invading a country with the intention of adding it to your own country permanently, which is what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine, or ruling it as a colony, which is what Britain did to many places before 1939, and invading a country in order to carry out “regime change” and then withdraw, which is what the United States has been doing in Panama, St Kitts, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think my point stands.

Sure there’s a difference between destroying Iraq’s gov’t and military under the lies of “gettin’ terrists” thereby opening up the floodgates for terrorists and Putin’s lies about Ukraine. Real big difference. We killed more people with much fewer losses than Russia has in Ukraine.

[LeeG]

Re: Ukraine

misc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-russia/

U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline
THE DISCORD LEAKS | The CIA learned last June, via a European spy agency, that a six-person team of Ukrainian special operations forces intended to sabotage the Russia-to-Germany natural gas project

By Shane Harris and Souad Mekhennet
June 6, 2023 at 10:52 a.m. EDT

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Re: Ukraine

Sure there’s a difference between destroying Iraq’s gov’t and military under the lies of “gettin’ terrists” thereby opening up the floodgates for terrorists and Putin’s lies about Ukraine. Real big difference. We killed more people with much fewer losses than Russia has in Ukraine.

I’m certainly not trying to excuse the disgraceful conduct of our nations.

I do, however, see a difference. I’d like to expand a bit.

Since the establishment of the United Nations Organisation, there have been very many cases of former colonies establishing their independence, there have been a few cases of nations splitting into two (Bangladesh separating from Pakistan, Eritrea separating from Ethiopia, South Sudan separating from Sudan, the Czech and Slovak republics parting company, Singapore separating from Malaysia, etc) nations splintering into fragments (Jugoslavia) and cases of neighbouring states arguing over bits of territory (Iran/Iraq, the Ogaden War, etc) rare cases of nations merging (Somalia and Somaliland, although de facto they have separated again).

There have been cases of a large nation re-asserting its right to rule over places which have asserted a right to be independent and really there seem to be just two large countries that have done this.

They are China asserting its right to rule Tibet and Xinjiang and Taiwan as part of China, and Russia asserting its right to rule Belarus and Ukraine and perhaps, given a chance, the Baltic States and Finland and Poland, as part of Russia.

I think we can see what the common interest of China and Russia is.

But in general, apart from these cases, which are put forward on the basis of historical precedent, I cannot think of another case in which a right to take over another nation on the basis of irredentism has been asserted.

Im not competent to discuss Latin America, but I will say that Southeast Asia has stuck to this rule for centuries. At one time or another each of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand has been Top Nation but none of them has tried to deny the existence of another one. Africa since the formation of the OAU has stuck to it except for the Ogaden War.

I think it’s possible to say that the idea that irredentism is no longer acceptable behaviour is generally accepted.

[LeeG]

Re: Ukraine

Thx Andrew, I agree that Ukraine should determine its future.

[heimlaga]

Re: Ukraine

For the sake of brevity I was being overly simplistic, but there has to be a willingness to end hostilities. Usually it comes when it's painfully obvious the numbers dont add up. Its a fact that none us commoners know what is happening at high levels, but we do know what the media is saying which is why I find narratives unhelpful. Your argument about borders reflects the sentiments of the day, during the first gulf war we were told that borders were sacrosanct and must be respected, some years later we were told the opposite when Nato bombed Kosovo it was all about human rights, self determination, that borders didnt matter and so on. Now borders are top of the pops again.

Historically wars in Europe did end up in trading land for peace but the rumblings along ethnic, cultural and racial lines eventually surface along with territorial aspirations, this is why there has been a deliberate and mostly successful effort to remove those influences politically though the creation of the EU. How long can it last?? Brexit on one level was the expression of cultural rebellion against Brussels, and we can see the rise of populism and a bit of fracturing throughout the EU experiment. Getting back to Ukraine, its criminal to not make efforts to end it through negotiation.

Note that Brexit was before the full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also note than since february 2022 all of the EU except the wannabee Putin puppet Orban in Hungary has joined tgether and worked together in a way which is quite the opposite to tour claims.

The Russian leadership has showed no interrest in ending hostilities on any other terms than their own. To anyone with basic insights into what is happening inside Russia it is obvious that to them even a total conquest and subjugation of Ukraine will not be enough. They have made it vary clear that their goal is to "restore" the empire by force and their definition of what is part of the empire to be restored includes many more European countries. An Ukrainan surrender be it total or partial would only be seen as one step towards that goal and the preparations for the next step would start immediately.
The only feasible way I can see of bringing about real negotiations would be to completely crush the Russian army and drive it out of Ukraine. The military failiour and the number of dead and wounded would be hard to explain at home in Russia all while the obvious absence of the so much feared Nato-Ukrainan invasion of the entire Russia would give the Russian government even more to explain at home. In such a situation I rekon there is a fair likelyhood that forces within Russia could bring about a regime change resulting in negotiations and peace.

The other alternative would be to start preparing new homes elsewhere for all us 100s of millions of Europeans who whould be forced to flee westward to escape from torture or death or at the very best years in prison camp followed by deportation as new citizens of the growing Russian empire. How many Finns can your home town take in and provide with land which has to be taken from it's present owners?
If you trade our land and our homes it would be no more than fair that you provide us with new land and new homes at your cost.

[Paul G.]

Re: Ukraine

There’s a difference between invading a country with the intention of adding it to your own country permanently, which is what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine, or ruling it as a colony, which is what Britain did to many places before 1939, and invading a country in order to carry out “regime change” and then withdraw, which is what the United States has been doing in Panama, St Kitts, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think my point stands.

You are making or simply repeating assumptions about Russia intentions, the first being that they want to add territory for its own sake. Their 3 stated aims were to protect Russian speakers in the Donbass and eastern Ukr, de militarise and de nazify. I think they got more than they bargained for but they havent mobilised which leads me to believe that they dont want Ukraine or at least not initially. Compounding all this is the fact they are slavic brothers, even Zelensky is a native Russian speaker who only learnt Ukrainian much later in the piece.

As for the justification of invasions, the butchers bill for bit of pointless regime change by the US runs into millions of lives, Libya is a failed state still! Leaving permanent military bases is a bonus of course. As for British colonialism, you cant brush that sordid history aside despite the decency and altruism of those civil servants trying to make it work (belief in the greater good has mostly gone these days) I dont want to resort to whataboutsim, or praise the lesser of two evils but I will point out the hypocrisy of Ukraine vs Palestine, Yemen or wherever our western interests favour the bullies over what is right. Geopolitics is not about friends, its about interests, so one step towards ending this disaster is finding what they are. My observation is that our diplomatic corps are unserious, inexperienced and shortsighted in this regard

[Paul G.]

Re: Ukraine

Note that Brexit was before the full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also note than since february 2022 all of the EU except the wannabee Putin puppet Orban in Hungary has joined tgether and worked together in a way which is quite the opposite to tour claims.

The Russian leadership has showed no interrest in ending hostilities on any other terms than their own. To anyone with basic insights into what is happening inside Russia it is obvious that to them even a total conquest and subjugation of Ukraine will not be enough. They have made it vary clear that their goal is to "restore" the empire by force and their definition of what is part of the empire to be restored includes many more European countries. An Ukrainan surrender be it total or partial would only be seen as one step towards that goal and the preparations for the next step would start immediately.
The only feasible way I can see of bringing about real negotiations would be to completely crush the Russian army and drive it out of Ukraine. The military failiour and the number of dead and wounded would be hard to explain at home in Russia all while the obvious absence of the so much feared Nato-Ukrainan invasion of the entire Russia would give the Russian government even more to explain at home. In such a situation I rekon there is a fair likelyhood that forces within Russia could bring about a regime change resulting in negotiations and peace.

The other alternative would be to start preparing new homes elsewhere for all us 100s of millions of Europeans who whould be forced to flee westward to escape from torture or death or at the very best years in prison camp followed by deportation as new citizens of the growing Russian empire. How many Finns can your home town take in and provide with land which has to be taken from it's present owners?
If you trade our land and our homes it would be no more than fair that you provide us with new land and new homes at your cost.

Heimlaga that is overblown rhetoric, show us some evidence that is the case i.e a Russian Monroe Doctrine

[heimlaga]

Re: Ukraine

Heimlaga that is overblown rhetoric, show us some evidence that is the case i.e a Russian Monroe Doctrine

I have not seen the doctrine printed on paper in Russian and leaked through reliable sources all the way from Kremlin.

However I have for instance seen a document with very concrete step by step plans to undermine Estonian independence and democracy turning it into a puppet state. The document was dated 2020 or 2021 and had been leaked through reliable independent journalists. In Belarus we are currently seeing a puppet state being slowly incorporated into the empire so the end result is predictable.

[Nicholas Carey]

Re: Ukraine

You are making or simply repeating assumptions about Russia intentions, the first being that they want to add territory for its own sake. Their 3 stated aims were to protect Russian speakers in the Donbass and eastern Ukr, de militarise and de nazify.

That's not Putin's stated aims in the least. He made his case quite clearly (despite the abysmal writing) regarding his view of Ukraine — it has no right to exist and is properly a part of Russia.

You might want to read it.

http://en.kremlin.ru/catalog/countries/UA/events/66181

[JayInOz]

Re: Ukraine

You might want to read it.

Ha! Good luck with that. A lot of whataboutism going on here- what about what Ukraine did in 2014, or the U.S. in Vietnam, or Britain in 1945. If people committed war crimes it needs to be dealt with. But this is about what putin has unleashed and what russian troops are doing right now. Torturing and executing prisoners of war. Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure. Killing indiscriminately using banned munitions- cluster bombs and phosphorus. Destroying food crops. Explain to me please how that is the fault of America or NATO or "the west". JayInOz

[sandtown]

Re: Ukraine

Ha! Good luck with that. A lot of whataboutism going on here- what about what Ukraine did in 2014, or the U.S. in Vietnam, or Britain in 1945. If people committed war crimes it needs to be dealt with. But this is about what putin has unleashed and what russian troops are doing right now. Torturing and executing prisoners of war. Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure. Killing indiscriminately using banned munitions- cluster bombs and phosphorus. Destroying food crops. Explain to me please how that is the fault of America or NATO or "the west". JayInOz

Get that log out of your own eye, Ozzie.

The hyper-opower has done all of that and more - while you stood silent as a lamb.

[sandtown]

Re: Ukraine

Accusing anyone else than the Russcists is ridiculous.......... however Vadim-Johan has some routine at being ridiculous.......

But it was your Elk that accused Roosia of blowing up it own Nord Stream - which was even more ridiculous.

And I have earned a fee academic degrees too.