Well that's a great reference to support your own comments, Europe and the EU are most definitely not the same.^ All over the place is the very India, Turkey, etc. Europe is the EU, the UK, undoubtedly others (literally, Europe).
Pass on the second paragraph.
One example as fsr as India is concerned:
EU bankrolling Putin with growing Russian fuel buys from India, report warns
The EU is paying more for fuel imports made from Moscow’s crude, showcasing the growing failure of its signature price-cap sanction.www.politico.eu
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
You keep repeating "if Russia thinks it is a threat then it is a threat" and yet you don't accept this rationale applies to other states and organisations,
If "NATO thinks Belarus is a threat then it IS a threat" and therefore RUSSIA should accept the demilitarisation of BELARUS if NATO demands it (Kaliningrad doubly so), and if it doesn't NATO should invade and make aje these territories safe for NATO.
rsemmes
Active Member
That invasion was a stupid idea, as proven by the results.
...
Yes, blame the victim (Yanukovich), western morale principles, I guess.
I heard (Constitution) the Kursk invasion was a great idea.
You are talking about (Strategic Credo) a plan or principles? About Kursk or about what you use when you are in the oposition?, when you can say whatever you want because you are not doing anything about it or when what you do is not what you say you were going to do; do you know how politics work? In the West?
As the reports say, Russia is selling a fantasy (a convenient propaganda tool) to Russians. Who are you trying to sell your fantasy to?
Hoover
New Member
Seriously????
Neither the Urkaine nor the NATO ever has been a threat to Russia. The pure feeling by the Russians is in no way any justification for the Russian aggression. Before 2014 and even bevore 2022 a Ukraine NATO membership was not on the desk. As the Russian invaders were in the Donbas and on the Crimean a membership was simply not possible.
The question os not "Ukraine can´t win!" but "How will a cease fire will be for the Urkaine?"
Of course the Ukraine won´t win the war on the military side. It is easy for any on the warm and safe table to ask why Zelenskij doesn´t simple surrender. Hey, would you happily surrender and hand over your country to a terror state without any rights?
A surrender on Russian terms will be the end of the ukraine as a souvereign and indepenend state. Great idea.
Putin knows, he only has to mention his nuclear weapons and the Ukraine supporters are afraid and let the terrorist state do whatever it wants.
And we are knowing the further Russian ideas of a post Ukraine war Europa.
At the end we (the "free world") will have only one chance: Support the Ukraine until a cease fire which saves the Ukraines independence (yes, with loss of territory) and stop the further Russian aggression. If Russia will gain a full victory the Ukraine will be gone, ca. 15m refugees will flee to the west to avoid living in a terror state, Moldavia and other countries will be in danger to be sacked by Russia, too, and the pressure on the Baltic states will increase. That is the game.
And in Feb 2022 the main problem was, that nobody was willing to give the Ukraine any guarantees in case of further Russian aggression. Russia broke every treaty since 1992 with the Ukraine. Every single treaty. So the BoJo´s talk to Zelenskij in Feb 2022 (If you will continue to fight, we will support you) is a nice story, but only half of the story.
rsemmes
Active Member
I disagree with the "should accept", something I never said.
Russia disagrees, as you can see; in the real world.
rsemmes
Active Member
A lot of imagination there... Just one point, we, the free world, when we invade countries?
For some reason, every time I read the word "whataboutism" I think of doublethink, deliberate disregard of History... or blatant hypocrisy.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,647
Leaving aside the... let's say questionable label of "terror state", it's clear the currently discussed peace conditions don't require Zelensky to hand over his country without any rights. You're either blissfully unaware of the negotiations and of Russia's position, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. My question to you is... how is a ceasefire better than accepting Russia's peace conditions (or a version of them)?
This is simply not true. Russia's current terms involve a sovereign and independent Ukraine minus 5 provinces and with a neutrality clause but with the road to EU membership open.
Of course, the Russia that hasn't managed to take Khar'kov or Sumy (or any city with a population of over 500k in this war) will somehow take Europe. Silly and wrong.
What happens if there is no ceasefire? In fact, in what scenario do you envision Russia agreeing to a ceasefire? All the current trend lines, and they've been in place for almost 2 years now, point to Ukraine losing forces faster than they can generate them, and the reverse for Russia. Russia's economy has weathered very strong sanctions and the ability to hit Russia with more sanctions is limited. Aid to Ukraine in terms of physical deliveries (the things actually to be used in the war) has gone down not up. Russia's dynamic in territorial terms has been one of faster advances, not slower ones. How does this end with a ceasefire and not a Ukrainian defeat ending in loss of even more territory and potentially actual loss of independence, on a long enough timeline?
Here's another question for you. Let's say Ukraine fights Russia into a strategic stalemate... somehow. Even then, why would Russia take a ceasefire? In the fall of '22 Russia's war effort was in trouble. Did Russia opt for ceasefire? No. They switched to a strategic defensive posture (minus Prigozhin's private offensive on Bakhmut/Artemovsk) for ~12 months while they weathered Ukraine's summer offensive, and rebuilt their strength. Then they launched their slow push. So if Russia again arrives at a point where they can't sustainably continue offensive operations, why accept a ceasefire? Why not slow offensive operations down to a more manageable level, but continue bombarding Ukraine with missiles and drones to destroy industry, infrastructure, and any western military deliveries they can, while rebuilding their troops?
Here's a third question, how is a ceasefire better than a deal with Russia along terms somewhat similar to what seems to be currently on the table? If Russia isn't to be trusted, what stops them from breaking the ceasefire at a time convenient for them? Western guarantees? Why can't those be applied to a peace deal?
Well this is the fundamental issue. Either the collective west is willing to give Ukraine binding security guarantees or they aren't. If they are, then Ukraine could take the deal Russia is offering (negotiating down to say getting to keep right shore Kherson, and Zaporozhye city, while handing over Slavyansk and Kramatorsk), get western security guarantees and remain independent. And without territorial disputes, the road to EU membership is at least in theory open. If the west isn't willing to offer those guarantees, what good is a ceasefire?
I think this is untrue. Russia offers economic cooperation and deep discounts on energy resources to Belarus, and in the past to Ukraine. I think the problem with Ukraine specifically is that Ukraine's elites were (are?) in a position where they have little to offer their own people. They're thoroughly corrupt, they're an oligarchy much more similar to Russia than to a western democracy, and they've mismanaged Ukraine's economy horribly. As a result they're now well behind Russia economically, they have a population that pre-war had a huge Russian minority, and was culturally very close to Russia, and they had no vision for the future. I don't believe any mount of offering Ukraine's leadership anything positive would have gotten Russia their friendship and cooperation. Yanukovich, who is widely declared to be pro-Russian, was still continuing negotiations about further relations with NATO behind closed doors. If Ukraine gets close to Russia but retains the same robber-baron elites, the end would have been their inevitable fall as their own population asks why they live worse then Russia, despite both emerging from a Soviet past with similar levels of development (arguably a higher one in Ukraine). For Ukraine's leadership a hostile Russia that's the enemy is the best way forward. They likely underestimated just how hostile Russia would get, I doubt they were counting on this situation. But I don't think any amount of being "the sun" would have helped Russia.
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
And that is exactly the "convenient propaganda tool" that vikingatespam mentioned before... Of course, it only applies to Russia.
Hoover
New Member
It´s only a part.
1. 5 oblasts to Russia
2. No NATO membership
3. change of gouvenment
4. lifting all sanctions
5. cease of all international lawsuits against Russia
6. disbanding of the Urkanian Army but to a small military force without some sorts of weapons
7. no western support of Ukraine
And not to mention the demands of a new European security system.
Yes, we have to wait what demands wil be in the treaty. But I think Russia is on the better side for negotiations.
A cease fire is a first step for peace treaty, but I don´t see any chances without western guarantees. And it depends on a peace treaty in detail.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,650
I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Zelensky is highly unlikely to win the next elections, and in a democracy changes of people in power are normal. They're not asking for a replacement of the judicial branch or of the legislature. So they're talking about something that would almost certainly happen anyway. 5 regions and a neutrality clause (well beyond just no NATO memberships) are the core of the demands. Ukraine has no ability to lift sanctions against Russia and if they're willing to deal on the first two, the rest are likely to be up for discussion. But I guess it remains to be seen. On the lawsuit piece, presumably this peace is intended to settle the conflict as a whole not move it to a different sphere. So whatever Ukraine wants to get out of Russia they would have to get as part of this treaty. And it makes sense. Russia signs a treaty that (hypothetically) splits Russia's foreign reserves down the middle, half to Ukraine for reconstruction, half back to Russia but earmarked to be spent on reconstruction in newly annexed areas. Then Ukraine uses a friendly western legal system to freeze more Russian assets under a lawsuit. It could go on for decades. There is no demand to disband Ukraine's army, this simply isn't true. There is a "demilitarization" point. If the Istanbul Accords are indicative, Russia is looking for Ukraine to have the size of its military limited. Presumably some of this would be negotiable. Point 7 is so vague that I don't know what you refer to. Again the Istanbul Accords specifically left the path open to EU membership and nothing Russia has said since then indicates that this is something they would oppose. So clearly western support in general would still be possible.
And... well of course Russia is on the better side for negotiations. They're winning the war. The question is, will they be winning or losing the war 6 or 12 or 18 months from now? And if winning, winning more or less than now? The Istanbul Accords were a deal that saw Ukraine get basically all of its territory back, to the Feb '22nd line. Now the deal is to accept losing more territory. Ukraine initially started with a position of retaking all their territory to the '91 borders, then talked about the Feb '22nd line, now the talk is of a ceasefire. Will Ukraine's negotiating position be stronger down the line? I don't see how.
But none of this addresses the either spectacularly ignorant or profoundly dishonest claims you made about Ukraine losing sovereignty and independence. A neutrality clause in Ukraine's constitution would be a fairly mild return to the status quo (Ukraine has had a neutrality clause for most of post-Soviet history).
So if Russia refuses to have a ceasefire until a treaty is negotiated and ready to be signed, then you believe no treaty would be possible? I understand why Ukraine wants a ceasefire. But the logic of it being the first step doesn't make any sense.
You also still haven't explained how a ceasefire is the preferred option if it is to be followed by negotiations anyway. Nevermind the part about where it isn't a realistic goal at this time.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
You seem to not have a point or have one that misses the mark more often than not nowadays.
It’s refined in India, but Russian crude is still gushing...
Oil products worth millions have been imported from a refinery owned by a sanctioned Russian firm
observer.co.uk
Turkey instead of India? Sure:
How Turkey became Putin’s ‘pit stop’ for selling camouflaged fuel to the EU
Moscow bagged €3 billion through a sanctions loophole that allows Turkey to relabel Russian oil and ship it to the EU.
www.politico.eu
Would you like to know more? Greece participation in the scheme, perhaps? I would think this is a common knowledge that Europe (with very few exceptions) is buying Russian oil via “intermediaries”, whether it is unrefined oil or petroleum products. This is, of course, on top of the oil purchases directly from Russia by the EU members. And, of course, on top of the purchases of pipeline natural gas from Russia (via Turk Stream) and LNG from Russia (still about 15% of the EU gas supplies, probably a significantly higher percentage for Europe overall, only direct imports). There is also, of course, Azeri gas (and oil), Kazakh oil, and other “intermediaries” from all over the place. What is the point you are trying to make? Mine, I believe, is pretty clear: Europe is buying Russian hydrocarbons from all over the place. This is going to remain so for the foreseeable future too, regardless of the sanctions. At the end of the day, it is Europe that wants these resources and, therefore, there will always be a way and a willing “intermediary” to make it happen. Imagine if drugs were finite, supplied at a certain volume, and you ban the drugs of a particular origin. To note, the origin in this case holds about a quarter of natural gas reserves on (rather in) Earth, about 18% of global natural gas production, and about 10% of global oil exports. I would think the picture is pretty clear. I talked about it years ago here. Ananda did as well. On multiple occasions. This is also no rocket science. While some resources are redirected to places like Europe (dictating higher prices in the process), others are now sold in places where they were redirected from (often at lower prices, implying someone making additional profit by reselling these very resources to those who used to buy them directly for less). No mysteries here, very basic economics and common sense.
This is not plausible though, but a near certainty especially when one includes the resources bought via “intermediaries”. But Trump is, of course, going to “sanction” India (not China!) with his idiotic tariffs, supposedly for purchasing Russian oil.
Basically, the lowest hanging fruit that he also has other agendas to settle with. My guess is this will be revered before Aug 27 or the deadline extended. The same will probably happen with China at some point in the near future when his “negotiations” don’t go as “planned” (everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth).
Even Lindsay Graham (being what he is) is catching a small part of the hypocrisy here:
He, of course, is not even referring to the direct purchases of hydrocarbons from Russia. Or the Americans buying what they actually need from Russia.
Is anyone going to chime in with the regular programming “whataboutism” comment? Targeted at me, of course.
@Redshift, imagine (pretending) seeing less than Lindsay Graham does!
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
So Zaluzhny was fired and Syrsky appointed in his place because the former suggested mobilizing half a million men 1.5 years ago while the latter suggested that there was no need because there were enough men in the Ukrainian Armed Forces to achieve the (unrealistic) goals. Now Syrsky is saying, after sending everyone he could into the grinder, they need to mobilize men because there is no other choice. This really is the strangest war in many ways.
In the meantime,
What happens if Pokrovsk (inevitable, in my opinion) and Kupyansk fall mere weeks apart? Maybe something else of significance in between or shortly after?
Ukrainian edge and ingenuity has finally led them to copy the Molniya drone, probably the cheapest among the more devastating and impactful things at the frontline today:
In the meantime,
What happens if Pokrovsk (inevitable, in my opinion) and Kupyansk fall mere weeks apart? Maybe something else of significance in between or shortly after?
Ukrainian edge and ingenuity has finally led them to copy the Molniya drone, probably the cheapest among the more devastating and impactful things at the frontline today:
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
A couple of humorous things directly related to this thread:
Hoover
New Member
Yes, by the todays situation it would have be wise to accept the ´22 terms. But at the end we are all smarter than before.
But the situation was much different then, with a Russian army in retrat and a (possible) Ukrainan army which could be able to regain the lost territory. So we have 3 major circumstances: Russia in face of losing the war in Ukraine (yes, it was possible in early summer of 2022), a Ukraine in attack, with starting western military assistance and the unwilling of the western countries to take serious pressure on Russia to end the war, instead they motivated the Ukaine to continue the war with more western aid (which never were really sufficient to stand against Russia).
Yes, from todays situation it would have been wise to accept the ´22 terms given by the Russians.
The discussion over a UA NATO membership is worthless. Ukraine will never be able to gain a membership as long as
1.) a single Russian soldier is on Ukraines soil
and
2.) all NATO members must agree to the membership. There are too many opponents to such idea, like Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia etc
It is and has been a distraction and a justification for Russia to start the war in 2014 to eleminate the threat of a pro western, democratic and economical succesful Ukraine to the Russian political system (I won´t say Russian dictatorship).
You misunderstood me. The terms of a cease fire with a Russian demand of stop all western military aid is not acceptable by the UA.
A cease fire with following peace talks and a peacy treaty with western guarantees and the end is a way to end the Russian war. We have to see if anybody is able and willing to take pressure on Russia to agree a cease fire. Why should Russia now accept a cease fire? They are winning and they know that Trump is weak and easy to handle.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,655
Will we be here in 2027 talking about how it would have been wise to accept Russia's 2024 terms?
Of course, economically successful.
Imagine it wasn't Trump but a second term of Biden. Would that change Russia's position?
Now, I agree with the very obvious statement that a ceasefire would follow a peace treaty with western guarantees. But of course the main question remains, what do the terms of peace look like? This is the fundamental issue. This is what the war is being fought over. So when advocating for a ceasefire I assumed you refer to the recent(ish) Ukrainian (and western backed) public push for a ceasefire with no preconditions. Otherwise your statement amounts to "when the war ends, the war ends". What is your position? Do you think more military aid to Ukraine will end the war faster or slower? What do you envision as a realistic, plausible end to the war? Under what terms?
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Forest for the trees or whatever the saying says.
Hoover
New Member
For me it not the question if more or less military aid would end the war faster/slower. but the amaount and the quality of them, in conjunction with the will from the west to enforce the sanctions.
More military aid in that low numbers over a long term is useless and no problem for Russia. Military aid in substantial numbers with substantial systems would force Russia to go into peace talks faster, that is my opinion. In the current situation Putin knows that he simply have to wait.
If the west (i.e. the UA support states) don´t want to support the Ukraine in that manner, than they have to let the Ukraine die.
Realistic? Trump will do a deal with Putin, Zelenskij only has to agree, nothing more. Russia will get his 5 oblasts, Trump will force the UA support states to end all sanctions. Ukanrine will becoming a puppet state of Russia, Trump will make "great business" with Russia and will plunder the Ukraine due to his UA deal. Aftfer that Russia will get Moldava and other former Sovjet states and will support China to get Taiwan.
Pessimistic? No, in my opinion ist that the realistic future in the next 1-2 years.
Russia will win in all manners because of the west´s fear for Russian´s nuclear threat and the west cowardice to make a stand against Putin.
And if you mention the Russian casualties in regard the term "winning", no. Human casualties don´t bother Putin in any way.
rsemmes
Active Member
No, don't blame "the world" like Zelenski. Ukraine din't have the troops to fight this war, neither the weapons nor the money; it is not a very good idea to fight a war based on promises.
Ukraine could have had the soldiers to fight it, or a lot of deserters, but never had the money nor the weapons (resources) to do it against Russia. We are talking about millions of artillery shells for Ukraine (and then millions of rounds for Russia) and what escalation each country can do.
Hoover
New Member
Yes, now we know that the promises of the supporters were wrong. But to be honest, I also thought, that the Ukraine could regain their territories in Summer 2022 to the borders of 2022 january. But there were more discussions and wishful thinking than real support. And in late summer 2022 the momentum was lost for the UA.
In my opinion the defender cannot escalate the situation but the aggressor can. The defender has all right to do everything (in the borders of the different international concetnions, of course) to stop the attacks and to defend his country. If it is possible is a different question.