Jump to content
nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

Recommended Posts

Just now, horsefly said:

In the interests of world order and peace who do you believe should prevail, Russia or Ukraine?

I don't think peace would ever be achieved by Ukraine prevailing, at which point they join Nato fully and Russia uses nukes.

I believe, in the interest of peace we should have taken Russia concerns very seriously prior to arming and training Ukraine from 2014 to 2022. As well as doing join military exercises with them. It is not hard to see why Russia considered its relationship as a 'de-facto' member of Nato. It is not just Russian incompetence why Ukraine is doing so well, Ukraine has been trained and supplied by Nato. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Yes! obviously. Or perhaps you can inform me of the moment when NATO invoked article 5 and began pouring troops into the Ukraine to fight the Russians. FFS does this really need pointing out?

Nato doesn't need article 5 to have Nato troops stationed in Ukraine. And we clearly have UK and US troops in Ukraine but they are training the Ukraine's so thats ok then... they are never going to be actively involved in military activities. How many times has this government lied to us on other matters, but just trust them we are only training soldiers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

I don't think peace would ever be achieved by Ukraine prevailing, at which point they join Nato fully and Russia uses nukes.

I believe, in the interest of peace we should have taken Russia concerns very seriously prior to arming and training Ukraine from 2014 to 2022. As well as doing join military exercises with them. It is not hard to see why Russia considered its relationship as a 'de-facto' member of Nato. It is not just Russian incompetence why Ukraine is doing so well, Ukraine has been trained and supplied by Nato. 

 

Good Lord! The very idea that a Russian victory would bring peace to the region is utterly insane. Putin has very clearly indicated he wants to recover the Russian empire which he associates with the territories of the former Soviet Union. Anyone who thinks that is a recipe for world harmony needs their head testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Nato doesn't need article 5 to have Nato troops stationed in Ukraine. And we clearly have UK and US troops in Ukraine but they are training the Ukraine's so thats ok then... they are never going to be actively involved in military activities. How many times has this government lied to us on other matters, but just trust them we are only training soldiers. 

The crucial point is NATO troops are NOT actively engaged in combat. Article 5 is crucial in that decision, and it can't be invoked because Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Good Lord! The very idea that a Russian victory would bring peace to the region is utterly insane. Putin has very clearly indicated he wants to recover the Russian empire which he associates with the territories of the former Soviet Union. Anyone who thinks that is a recipe for world harmony needs their head testing.

Ok, you really do eat up all the media talking points and are really just a waste of time in trying to have a decent conversation.You like to twist and manipulate answers to your own agenda.

Where did I state, a Russia victory. I didn't. 

I made it very clear that a full Ukraine victory, removing Russia from all parts of Ukraine including Crimea, will be totally unacceptable to Russia and it will likely to nuclear war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, horsefly said:

The crucial point is NATO troops are NOT actively engaged in combat. Article 5 is crucial in that decision, and it can't be invoked because Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO.

Article5, is all out war. It doesn't mean we can't send 'volunteers' to be actively engaged in conflict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

I don't think peace would ever be achieved by Ukraine prevailing, at which point they join Nato fully and Russia uses nukes.

Ukraine has already declared it will not join NATO. It was nowhere near doing so when Russia invaded. 14 years has passed since Ukraine was considered for possible membership and nothing has happened precisely to prevent Russia feeling threatened.

As for Russia inviting Moscow and every other major Russian city to be annihilated by precipitating a nuclear war (all for the sake of losing out on the Donbass region), somehow I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Ukraine has already declared it will not join NATO. It was nowhere near doing so when Russia invaded. 14 years has passed since Ukraine was considered for possible membership and nothing has happened precisely to prevent Russia feeling threatened.

As for Russia inviting Moscow and every other major Russian city to be annihilated by precipitating a nuclear war (all for the sake of losing out on the Donbass region), somehow I doubt it.

How much will you bet on total defeat of Russia, its economy destroyed. That Russia will not turn to nuclear weapons. You clearly must trust their restraint highly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Ok, you really do eat up all the media talking points and are really just a waste of time in trying to have a decent conversation.You like to twist and manipulate answers to your own agenda.

Where did I state, a Russia victory. I didn't. 

I made it very clear that a full Ukraine victory, removing Russia from all parts of Ukraine including Crimea, will be totally unacceptable to Russia and it will likely to nuclear war. 

Hilarious! You have just asked "where did I state a Russia victory" then claim in the very next sentence that removing Russia from all parts of Ukraine would be, "totally unacceptable to Russia, and it will likely to nuclear war [sic]". NOT removing Russia from Ukrainian territory is the very definition of a Russian victory FFS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Article5, is all out war. It doesn't mean we can't send 'volunteers' to be actively engaged in conflict. 

Erm! There is NO government policy to send volunteers  to fight against the Russians. Indeed the government have made very clear that volunteers who go there on their own accord are potentially in breach of the law. Get your facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horsefly said:

Hilarious! You have just asked "where did I state a Russia victory" then claim in the very next sentence that removing Russia from all parts of Ukraine would be, "totally unacceptable to Russia, and it will likely to nuclear war [sic]". NOT removing Russia from Ukrainian territory is the very definition of a Russian victory FFS!

That is not victory ffs stop twisting words... a peaceful comprise will lead to peace. And allow Russia to back down.

Completely destroying them, will leave the Kremlin politician unsustainable and the country humiliated on the world stage. 

Again, I didn't say that Russia prevailing will lead to peace,  Not sure that Nato will not intervene if Russia is going to prevail. Although, it depends on what you consider Russia prevailing is... the two region in the east and Russia will announce it has been successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

How much will you bet on total defeat of Russia, its economy destroyed. That Russia will not turn to nuclear weapons. You clearly must trust their restraint highly. 

Nope! I rely on the belief that Russians will not be stupid enough to want the nuclear destruction of all its major cities for the sake of a war to occupy the Donbass region of Ukraine.

And BTW, who has called for the destruction of Russia? All that has been asked is that Russia withdraws its troops from the illegal invasion of another country's sovereign land. Russia could very easily bring all the sanctions to an end by doing this very simple thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

That is not victory ffs stop twisting words... a peaceful comprise will lead to peace. And allow Russia to back down.

Completely destroying them, will leave the Kremlin politician unsustainable and the country humiliated on the world stage. 

Again, I didn't say that Russia prevailing will lead to peace,  Not sure that Nato will not intervene if Russia is going to prevail. Although, it depends on what you consider Russia prevailing is... the two region in the east and Russia will announce it has been successful. 

Jesus! your ignorance is astounding. Any territorial concession to Russia will very obviously be regarded as a Russian victory. Indeed Putin himself has already claimed such victories and used those very words. Are you really so pro-Putin's invasion that you can't grasp this simple point?

And yet again you spout the pathetic and blatant lie that the West are intent on "Completely destroying them". The solution is very simple; Russia withdraws from its illegal invasion and Russia survives with all its internationally recognised borders intact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

That is not victory ffs stop twisting words... a peaceful comprise will lead to peace. And allow Russia to back down.

Completely destroying them, will leave the Kremlin politician unsustainable and the country humiliated on the world stage. 

Again, I didn't say that Russia prevailing will lead to peace,  Not sure that Nato will not intervene if Russia is going to prevail. Although, it depends on what you consider Russia prevailing is... the two region in the east and Russia will announce it has been successful. 

 There's not a way out of this situation that doesn't antagonise Russia through humiliation or embolden it through success. As it stands, I see a humiliated Russia as dangerous, but less dangerous than an embolden one. 

I also don't think you have fully grasped the extent of Russian ambitions here, they are not handing back the South if they gain the Donbas and there's a decent chance they will try to seize the whole coastline to make Ukraine economically non-viable and to link up with transniatria. 

At every stage, we have assumed that Russian ambitions would be more limited than they have been, I think we now need to believe that they are aiming for the whole thing. A novo-russia with a legally independent but essentially clientalist Ukraine in the style of Belarus.

Edited by 1902
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 1902 said:

There's not a way out of this situation that doesn't antagonise Russia through humiliation or embolden it through success. As it stands, I see a humiliated Russia as dangerous, but less dangerous than an embolden one. 

Thanks for acknowledging my view point... and i didn't say a Russia victory leads to peace.  I just said a Russia defeat doesn't lead to peace. To be fair, I think I said I didn't see any peaceful outcome. 

Horsefly seems to think it is a so simple and that Russia can go home and there wont be any politically fallout. Putin and his allies will have to leave not just him. Everyone will be happy to do that. That Putin/his generals wont up the ante before that happens.

At this stage, peace is unlikely on any outcome. Lets be honest, a peace deal isn't likely anytime soon. At this stage Ukraine/Nato have no desires where as I would suspect the Russians would love to have peace deal if it was on their terms.

Therefore, I don't see any end to this conflict and it will last months and months, if not years and years. 

17 minutes ago, 1902 said:

I also don't think you have fully grasped the extent of Russian ambitions here, they are not handing back the South if they gain the Donbas and there's a decent chance they will try to seize the whole coastline to make Ukraine economically non-viable and to link up with transniatria. 

At every stage, we have assumed that Russian ambitions would be more limited than they have been, I think we now need to believe that they are aiming for the whole thing. A novo-russia with a legally independent but essentially clients list Ukraine in the style of Belarus.

Who really knows what their overall goals are, I don't believe their ambitions are outside of the east. If they were planning on taking a country the largest in Europe, and with a population of 40m. They are not going to achieve it with 190k troops. You would need a substantially larger force than this.

A proxy state like Belarus is unlikely, the west of ukraine would be hard to control. The east is significantly made up of ethnic Russians and alot easier to control. I don't believe they could achieve this in the west. 

Edited by Baracouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Thanks for acknowledging my view point... and i didn't say a Russia victory leads to peace.  I just said a Russia defeat doesn't lead to peace. To be fair, I think I said I didn't see any peaceful outcome. 

Horsefly seems to think it is a so simple and that Russia can go home and there wont be any politically fallout. Putin and his allies will have to leave not just him. Everyone will be happy to do that. That Putin/his generals wont up the ante before that happens.

At this stage, peace is unlikely on any outcome. Lets be honest, a peace deal isn't likely anytime soon. At this stage Ukraine/Nato have no desires where as I would suspect the Russians would love to have peace deal if it was on their terms.

Therefore, I don't see any end to this conflict and it will last months and months, if not years and years. 

Who really knows what their overall goals are, I don't believe their ambitions are outside of the east. If they were planning on taking a country the largest in Europe, and with a population of 40m. They are not going to achieve it with 190k troops. You would need a substantially larger force than this.

A proxy state like Belarus is unlikely, the west of ukraine would be hard to control. The east is significantly made up of ethnic Russians and alot easier to control. I don't believe they could achieve this in the west. 

I agree it's not feasible, but Russian aims have never been all that feasible. The attempted decapitation of the Ukrainian government in February points to both a policy of regime change and a lack of understanding about what is militarily viable. 

I also think there's a tendency to overestimate support for Russia in the South and East, Russian speakers don't all identify with Russians and probably identify with them less today than they did in January.

I suspect the Kremlin thinks that Ukraine is close to collapse. I'm not sure that the country can hold out much longer but I also suspect that Russia is also running low. It's basically a classic war of attrition now. 

My main point if difference is that Ukraine would love a peace deal on its terms just as much as Russia, those terms are just mutually exclusive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

At this stage Ukraine/Nato have no desires where as I would suspect the Russians would love to have peace deal if it was on their terms.

What utterly ludicrous tripe! Do you actually read through what you have said?

I'm sure Russia would indeed "love to a have a peace deal if it was on their on their terms". Just as much as I'm sure the Ukrainians are rather unlikely to say to Russia, "You name which bits of our land you want and we'll give it to you as a reward for your invasion of our sovereign territory".  FFS!

To claim that the Ukraine has "no desires" for a peace deal, is both absurd and shameful, and contrary to the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 1902 said:

I agree it's not feasible, but Russian aims have never been all that feasible. The attempted decapitation of the Ukrainian government in February points to both a policy of regime change and a lack of understanding about what is militarily viable. 

That's true, but were they attempting a regime change or trying to force Kiev into accepting terms. And winning in a few days. I think they didn't expect the resolve of Kiev and thought, send a large army convoy to 'threaten' Kiev. I only think that as those convoys around Kiev, appear have significant logistics issues and/or underserved to ever be a significant military threat. Which indicates that it was either incompetence or it was never intended to be a military exercise.  One can only guess as to their true motives in this regard.

10 minutes ago, 1902 said:

I also think there's a tendency to overestimate support for Russia in the South and East, Russian speakers don't all identify with Russians and probably identify with them less today than they did in January.

Yes they are overestimated, but much easier to control with puppets than the western regions that border Poland.

10 minutes ago, 1902 said:

I suspect the Kremlin thinks that Ukraine is close to collapse. I'm not sure that the country can hold out much longer but I also suspect that Russia is also running low. It's basically a classic war of attrition now. 

Yes, the unfortunate situation. The more weapons we send Ukraine. The more it will be turned into a meat grinder. 

11 minutes ago, 1902 said:

My main point if difference is that Ukraine would love a peace deal on its terms just as much as Russia, those terms are just mutually exclusive.

I believe the Russians were serious early on/before the war with the peace efforts, when it offered if Ukraine agrees to Minsk agreement, becoming a neutral state and demilitarises that a peaceful settlement could have been achieved. I haven't heard of any serious attempts by either side to entertain peace since those meetings. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 

What utterly ludicrous tripe! Do you actually read through what you have said?

I'm sure Russia would indeed "love to a have a peace deal if it was on their on their terms". Just as much as I'm sure the Ukrainians are rather unlikely to say to Russia, "You name which bits of our land you want and we'll give it to you as a reward for your invasion of our sovereign territory".  FFS!

To claim that the Ukraine has "no desires" for a peace deal, is both absurd and shameful, and contrary to the evidence.

 

Makes perfect sense...Russia has terms it will accept, can claim victory and go home. Ukraine has no interest in entertaining those terms. 

If 'peace' deal for Ukraine means a complete withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine territory. Then it's not a peace deal, it's complete victory. 

Edited by Baracouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Baracouda said:

That's true, but were they attempting a regime change or trying to force Kiev into accepting terms. And winning in a few days. I think they didn't expect the resolve of Kiev and thought, send a large army convoy to 'threaten' Kiev. I only think that as those convoys around Kiev, appear have significant logistics issues and/or underserved to ever be a significant military threat. Which indicates that it was either incompetence or it was never intended to be a military exercise.  One can only guess as to their true motives in this regard.

Yes they are overestimated, but much easier to control with puppets than the western regions that border Poland.

Yes, the unfortunate situation. The more weapons we send Ukraine. The more it will be turned into a meat grinder. 

I believe the Russians were serious early on/before the war with the peace efforts, when it offered if Ukraine agrees to Minsk agreement, becoming a neutral state and demilitarises that a peaceful settlement could have been achieved. I haven't heard of any serious attempts by either side to entertain peace since those meetings. 

 

I don't believe that sending weapons is the wrong thing to do. It strikes me as the same arguments against arming the Spanish Republic.

People die in war, but it's up to the Ukrainians to decide if they wish to use the weapons we send. We shouldn't force them to surrender 'for their own good'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Baracouda said:

Makes perfect sense...Russia has terms it will accept, can claim victory and go home. Ukraine has no interest in entertaining those terms. 

You are right technically, but Ukraine shouldn't be expected to entertain them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1902 said:

I don't believe that sending weapons is the wrong thing to do. It strikes me as the same arguments against arming the Spanish Republic.

People die in war, but it's up to the Ukrainians to decide if they wish to use the weapons we send. We shouldn't force them to surrender 'for their own good'.

I didn't say it was wrong, just leads to the obvious meat grinder and complete destruction of those areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Horsefly seems to think it is a so simple and that Russia can go home and there wont be any politically fallout. Putin and his allies will have to leave not just him. Everyone will be happy to do that. That Putin/his generals wont up the ante before that happens.

Where did I say this? I said there is a simple answer if Russia wants to avoid the consequences of sanctions and military losses. All it has to do is reverse it's illegal invasion of another country's sovereign territory. If they did this they needn't lose another single soldier, nor a single piece of military hardware, nor a single metre of Russian territory. Because neither the Ukraine, nor NATO, nor the EU has demonstrated the slightest desire to wage an aggressive assault on Russian land or its people.

Nowhere did I say Russian withdrawal wouldn't cause political fallout in Russia itself. Pay attention to what is actually written not what you like to pretend is written in order to support your pro-Putin stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1902 said:

You are right technically, but Ukraine shouldn't be expected to entertain them either.

as i said before, I said I dont believe a peace deal is possible and any outcome leads to peace. That the war will be drawn outcome. 

Please don't think my personal opinion on what is happening or the reasons for it. Is me agreeing that something should happen or not. I am merely trying to look at all parties their views and try to understand sequences of events. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baracouda said:

as i said before, I said I dont believe a peace deal is possible and any outcome leads to peace. That the war will be drawn outcome. 

Please don't think my personal opinion on what is happening or the reasons for it. Is me agreeing that something should happen or not. I am merely trying to look at all parties their views and try to understand sequences of events. 

That's fair. You are unfortunately right that the situation will only get worse. This will be a long and bloody war unless 1. Ukraine collapses or 2. Russian morale collapses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Nowhere did I say Russian withdrawal wouldn't cause political fallout in Russia itself. Pay attention to what is actually written not what you like to pretend is written in order to support your pro-Putin stance.

I have and all the times you try twisting my view point. Making insults, claiming I am pro-putin. 

I try to say this is the view of Russia, this is the Ukraine position and this is Nato/America. Those obvious conflicts on their position wouldn't has no peaceful outcome. 

You obviously thinks this is a personal battle and one of us is right and the other is wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Makes perfect sense...Russia has terms it will accept, can claim victory and go home. Ukraine has no interest in entertaining those terms. 

If 'peace' deal for Ukraine means a complete withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine territory. Then it's not a peace deal, it's complete victory. 

You get more ludicrous by the minute. Not many minutes ago you were swearing blind that you were not in favour of a Russian victory, now you state the very opposite. BTW the whole point of a Russian victory is that it won't "go home". Again, I can't believe I have to point that out.

To even begin to think that it can't be a peace deal if it involves complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian sovereign land is a truly bizarre claim to make. The very idea that a peace deal must of necessity reward the invader of a sovereign land by giving up parts of that land to them is simply absurd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horsefly said:

You get more ludicrous by the minute. Not many minutes ago you were swearing blind that you were not in favour of a Russian victory, now you state the very opposite. BTW the whole point of a Russian victory is that it won't "go home". Again, I can't believe I have to point that out.

To even begin to think that it can't be a peace deal if it involves complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian sovereign land is a truly bizarre claim to make. The very idea that a peace deal must of necessity reward the invader of a sovereign land by giving up parts of that land to them is simply absurd. 

The word 'deal', is key... I don't believe Russia will ever agree to a complete withdrawal without something for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

I have and all the times you try twisting my view point. Making insults, claiming I am pro-putin. 

I try to say this is the view of Russia, this is the Ukraine position and this is Nato/America. Those obvious conflicts on their position wouldn't has no peaceful outcome. 

You obviously thinks this is a personal battle and one of us is right and the other is wrong. 

Nope! You said very clearly that Russia was justified in its decision to invade the Ukraine. Perhaps you need to be much more careful in how you express your opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horsefly said:

Nope! You said very clearly that Russia was justified in its decision to invade the Ukraine. Perhaps you need to be much more careful in how you express your opinions. 

quote where i said they were justified

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...