Russian Ukraine Invasion

[confused2]

Since Syne seems to have a problem with .. many things ..
In full..

The US will not be a party to this war continuing. Either it ends on the best terms possible, or we are out. If Europe wants the war to continue, then Europe will have to bear the cost in money, military capability and lives themselves.

I say "Put that way - seems very reasonable" this is acceptance of a view and I can't think of anything less like a demand .. and for some reason Syne responds with ".. You don't get to demand .." which I'm guessing is a comprehension problem at his end.

As on day 1 of the invasion the question remains "Can Ukraine defeat Russia?" - a simple enough question and the answer is yes or no.

If Ukraine can't defeat Russia the next question is "Will Putin settle for some part(s) of Ukraine or will he take all?" - again yes or no.

[geordief]

Since Syne seems to have a problem with .. many things ..
In full..

The US will not be a party to this war continuing. Either it ends on the best terms possible, or we are out. If Europe wants the war to continue, then Europe will have to bear the cost in money, military capability and lives themselves.

I say "Put that way - seems very reasonable" this is acceptance of a view and I can't think of anything less like a demand .. and for some reason Syne responds with ".. You don't get to demand .." which I'm guessing is a comprehension problem at his end.

As on day 1 of the invasion the question remains "Can Ukraine defeat Russia?" - a simple enough question and the answer is yes or no.

If Ukraine can't defeat Russia the next question is "Will Putin settle for some part(s) of Ukraine or will he take all?" - again yes or no.

The honourable course is to provide Ukraine with the means to decide for itself .

The expedient course is to provide Ukraine the means to keep Russia from attacking Europe as a whole.

America is a lost cause ,it seems  and Europe must  defend itself now.

I think history has taught us that appeasing tyrants is kicking the can down the road.

We are clearly appeasing  Trump and his cabal.Will this have more success this time around?

[C C]

Propsects

1. Ukraine is never going to recover its lost territory via battle.

2. An eternal war, futilely attempting to do that, will eventually deplete the military viable part of Ukraine's population. Leaving the whole of the country vulnerable to conquest.

3. With respect to its own demographic crisis, Russia can recruit throwaway cannon fodder from the subservient parts of the Federation and its sycophant neighbors and allies. Europe, in contrast, will not contribute its own troops to fight in Ukraine's war.

4. Hoping to drag out the war until Putin dies simply means a more determined, ruthless, and reckless sphincter taking his place, that's waiting in line.

5. Europe providing arms but no substantive amount of personnel to the body count won't suffice in the long term (10, 20, 30 years). Belief that "moral superiority prevails in the end" is akin to belief in magic, and the latter usually fails. And this sets aside that some literary intellectual trends on the left rendered ethics into a relativistic (depends on POV) affair.

6. Work out and accept a peace plan, or Russia eventually acquires all of Ukraine.

[stryder]

Propsects

1. Ukraine is never going to recover its lost territory via battle.

2. An eternal war, futilely attempting to do that, will eventually deplete the military viable part of Ukraine's population. Leaving the whole of the country vulnerable to conquest.

3. With respect to its own demographic crisis, Russia can recruit throwaway cannon fodder from the subservient parts of the Federation and its sycophant neighbors and allies. Europe, in contrast, will not contribute its own troops to fight in Ukraine's war.

4. Hoping to drag out the war until Putin dies simply means a more determined, ruthless, and reckless sphincter taking his place, that's waiting in line.

4. Work out and accept a peace plan, or Russia eventually acquires all of Ukraine. Europe providing arms but no substantive amount of personnel to the body count won't suffice in the long term (10, 20, 30 years). Belief that "moral superiority prevails in the end" is akin to belief in magic, and the latter usually fails. And this sets aside that some literary intellectual trends on the left rendered ethics into a relativistic (depends on POV) affair.

One of my posed relatives in my Family tree is stated to have said "I will never bow my knees at the knees of any man, and no mans foot will I kiss". I mention this because such an ancestor (who would be shocked if I was anything less) wouldn't capitulate to the fruitless demands of an enemy even the most bleakest of prospects, for when there is a will, there is a way. It's just finding the right moment in time to flip the tables.

Russia wants to claim they are "the manliest of men" and "the west is too woke". If Trumps peace plan had been put into place, it would of proven just that (since it's weak) Hopefully any rework is a better job, however any weakness in an eventual plan will just embolden Russia.

On a side note, another posed relative whos branch connects to the previously one, created Russia from the tribal infighting in the region (With the help of some Vlandian Mercenaries), so I wouldn't take their shit either way.

In any event, hopefully the rewrite of a plan gets further and doesn't allow too much "western wokeism" to make it weak.

[geordief]

Propsects

1. Ukraine is never going to recover its lost territory via battle.

2. An eternal war, futilely attempting to do that, will eventually deplete the military viable part of Ukraine's population. Leaving the whole of the country vulnerable to conquest.

3. With respect to its own demographic crisis, Russia can recruit throwaway cannon fodder from the subservient parts of the Federation and its sycophant neighbors and allies. Europe, in contrast, will not contribute its own troops to fight in Ukraine's war.

4. Hoping to drag out the war until Putin dies simply means a more determined, ruthless, and reckless sphincter taking his place, that's waiting in line.

4. Work out and accept a peace plan, or Russia eventually acquires all of Ukraine. Europe providing arms but no substantive amount of personnel to the body count won't suffice in the long term (10, 20, 30 years). Belief that "moral superiority prevails in the end" is akin to belief in magic, and the latter usually fails. And this sets aside that some literary intellectual trends on the left rendered ethics into a relativistic (depends on POV) affair.

One of my posed relatives in my Family tree is stated to have said "I will never bow my knees at the knees of any man, and no mans foot will I kiss".  I mention this because such an ancestor (who would be shocked if I was anything less) wouldn't capitulate to the fruitless demands of an enemy even the most bleakest of prospects, for when there is a will, there is a way. It's just finding the right moment in time to flip the tables.

Russia wants to claim they are "the manliest of men" and "the west is too woke".  If Trumps peace plan had been put into place, it would of proven just that (since it's weak)  Hopefully any rework is a better job, however any weakness in an eventual plan will just embolden Russia.

On a side note, another posed relative whos branch connects to the previously one, created Russia from the tribal infighting in the region (With the help of some Vlandian Mercenaries), so I wouldn't take their shit either way.

In any event, hopefully the rewrite of a plan gets further and doesn't allow too much "western wokeism" to make it weak.

"posed"?

If Russia takes Ukraine it will turn its  vassal state like a gun  on Western Europe ,who could well be said to have deserved it.
If Ukraine has the resolve to resist ,then we should  render assistance.
If Ukraine thinks it can make a deal  with what can only be called the devil ,then so be it too.

But  we are in the firing line and  Ukraine is standing up for us as well as itself .

And we have no backers as the US has shown the colour of their hand .

[confused2]

Putting together points from earlier posts.. (Edit.. Gordief makes similar points in the latest post above ^^)
Ukraine has the only army with any credibility in the face of Russian aggression .. effectively holding back the Russian hordes from any attempt to invade other parts of Europe. Kind of suggests giving them massive support makes sense for Europe.
If Ukraine falls - by negotiation or defeat - Europe not only loses the Ukrainian army but potentially faces it coming the other way.
If Russia takes Ukraine will Putin close down his war machine or will he look for new territory?
If the front isn't in Ukraine will it just be somewhere else?

[C C]

Putting together points from earlier posts.. (Edit.. Gordief makes similar points in the latest post above ^^)
Ukraine has the only army with any credibility in the face of Russian aggression .. effectively holding back the Russian hordes from any attempt to invade other parts of Europe. Kind of suggests giving them massive support makes sense for Europe. [...]

Just as long as that support from Europe includes sending its own troops at some point along the ensuing years. Continuing to give weapons and ammunition to Ukrainian fighters who will largely be six-feet-under at that point will not hold back the mercenaries and war-slaves that Russia bolsters itself with (as its conscription source for bodies to throw into the fray also shrinks -- but not at the level of Ukraine's).

[Syne]

Propsects

1. Ukraine is never going to recover its lost territory via battle.

2. An eternal war, futilely attempting to do that, will eventually deplete the military viable part of Ukraine's population. Leaving the whole of the country vulnerable to conquest.

3. With respect to its own demographic crisis, Russia can recruit throwaway cannon fodder from the subservient parts of the Federation and its sycophant neighbors and allies. Europe, in contrast, will not contribute its own troops to fight in Ukraine's war.

4. Hoping to drag out the war until Putin dies simply means a more determined, ruthless, and reckless sphincter taking his place, that's waiting in line.

5. Europe providing arms but no substantive amount of personnel to the body count won't suffice in the long term (10, 20, 30 years). Belief that "moral superiority prevails in the end" is akin to belief in magic, and the latter usually fails. And this sets aside that some literary intellectual trends on the left rendered ethics into a relativistic (depends on POV) affair.

6. Work out and accept a peace plan, or Russia eventually acquires all of Ukraine.

Just as long as that support from Europe includes sending its own troops at some point along the ensuing years. Continuing to give weapons and ammunition to Ukrainian fighters who will largely be six-feet-under at that point will not hold back the mercenaries and war-slaves that Russia bolsters itself with (as its conscription source for bodies to throw into the fray also shrinks -- but not at the level of Ukraine's).

Great posts, CC.

[Yazata]

As on day 1 of the invasion the question remains "Can Ukraine defeat Russia?" - a simple enough question and the answer is yes or no.

No.

Of course the answer depends on how "defeat Russia" is defined.

Can Ukraine roll across Russia all the way to Vladivostok? Of course not. Can Ukraine engineer favorable regime change in Moscow? Probably not, since if Putin is overthrown, he would likely be replaced by somebody even more hard-line. Can Ukraine force the Russians out of the 1990 borders that Kyiv claims? (That seems to be how Zelensky defines it.) Very unlikely, absent decisive foreign combat arms fighting alongside Ukraine. Neither the US or the Europeans seem willing to do that. (I'm not entirely convinced the Europeans have the ability. Certainly none of their countries do individually.) And if the Russian army was decisively defeated in conventional combat on the Ukraine battlefield, wouldn't they be expected to break out nuclear weapons? What then?

If Ukraine can't defeat Russia the next question is "Will Putin settle for some part(s) of Ukraine or will he take all?" - again yes or no.

Yes. (Maybe.) That's the premise that the peace plan is based on. (And the plan was drawn up with significant Russian input.)

Russia invaded in 2022 with the aim of pushing into Kyiv in a matter of days and installing a new pro-Russian government similar to the one that was overthrown by the US and European engineered 2014 coup that led to Russia's seizure of Crimea. It's totally unacceptable to Russia's vision of its own national security to have Ukraine hostile and anti-Russian, and joining a very threatening anti-Russian military alliance (NATO).

But Russia's invasion bogged down and failed to achieve that basic goal. Ukraine continued to have a militant anti-Russian government and continued to flirt with NATO (with plenty of NATO encouragement). So Russia turned to Plan B and started carving out a buffer zone in the Donbass along with a land-bridge to Crimea.

Will Putin settle for that? Does he have any choice? Installing a friendly Ukrainian government seems out of reach, especially after years of war. Given the Russian army's weak showing on the battlefield and its snail's pace of advance, taking the rest of Ukraine looks increasingly impossible, unless Ukraine totally implodes, which remains a possibility (albeit a Russian dream).

Would Putin ever agree to completely evacuate his forces from Ukraine as Ukraine demands? No, not without achieving Moscow's original 2022 goal of installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, making Ukraine a Russian client state. That's the price of Russia withdrawing, and Ukraine would never agree to it.

Would Putin agree to settle for the parts of Ukraine that Russia already occupies? Perhaps, if the rest of Ukraine didn't present a national security threat to Russia. Hence the importance of preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. But that leaves Ukraine in need of credible security guarantees that Russia wouldn't perceive as unacceptably threatening. I personally believe that European security guarantees, with no foreign troops stationed in Ukraine unless Ukraine is attacked, might thread that needle. Introducing the Europeans wouldn't enable Ukraine to push Russia out, but they would enable Ukraine to return more effectively to the endless war of attrition that we see today.

So Ukraine wouldn't lose anything that they haven't already lost. They would gain the end of the bloodshed that's decimating their young male population. They would keep their indepence and sovereignty. They would gain promised US and European economic redevelopment aid. And they would get a fast-track to European Union membership.

Russia would get three Ukrainian oblasts and large parts of two more. Plus the end of the bloodshed and the chance to rebuild their economy and apply lessons-learned to making their military more combat-effective. Sanctions would go away and offers of economic cooperation would flow in, attracted by Siberia's abundant natural resources. Russia might even become prosperous on the back of a natural resources boom, much like the Gulf Arab states.

[C C]

Zelenskyy has a point that Russia will -- lingeringly -- continue to launch mitigated attacks against Ukraine even after a peace deal. Ergo, the "security guarantees" for Ukraine have to be clarified in a better way than just restoring sanctions against Russia and revoking recognition. Though obviously, neither the US nor Europe will commit to directly and immediately defending Ukraine, and the latter is restricted from reciprocally responding to Russian harassment (at least with respect to Moscow and St. Petersburg).

[...] 5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

US security guarantees:

[...] c. If Russia invades Ukraine, all global sanctions will be restored and recognition of new territories will be revoked.

d. If Ukraine fires a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg, the guarantees become invalid.

The protection of Ukraine in the course of Russian violations of a cease fire is probably a major snag. Perhaps more so than giving up the occupied territories, since Zelenskyy could in theory regard that as a "goal deferred". Something that can be given up for now, but still remain an objective for future generations, akin to China trying to reacquire Taiwan.
- -- - - - - - - - - - -

Ukraine peace talks in Geneva 'productive and meaningful,' Rubio says
https://abcnews.go.com/International/off...=127796632

EXCERPT: Ukrainian President Zelenskyy posted Sunday, following a call with French president Emmanuel Macron, that "our teams in Geneva are working with partners, and it is very important that there is a practical result and that it brings Ukraine and all of Europe closer to reliable peace and security."

In what appeared to be a nod to President Trump's social media posts, Zelenskyy also addressed the U.S. and Trump, saying in part "we count on our partners to hear our arguments. The leadership of the United States is important, we are grateful for everything that America and President Trump are doing for security, and we keep working as constructively as possible."

Zelenskyy also wrote in part that "the crux of the entire diplomatic situation is that it was Russia, and only Russia, that started this war, and it is Russia, and only Russia, that has been refusing to end it throughout the full-scale invasion," elaborating on continuing Russian assaults in Ukraine.

A U.S. official told ABC News that there are plans for the U.S. delegation to hold a separate meeting with a Russian delegation. No details were provided about the location of the planned meeting with the Russians. Rubio, however, said it was "possible" that Trump and Zelenskyy could speak on the phone Sunday.

The U.S. has threatened Ukraine with a complete halt to all assistance if Kyiv does not agree to the proposed deal, a high-ranking Ukrainian official close to the matter told ABC News on Sunday.

This halt would include the supply of air defense missiles, as well as intelligence sharing and all other commitments related to weapons deliveries and support from the U.S., the official said.

Zelenskyy on Sunday confirmed that meetings were underway in Switzerland. "It is good that diplomacy has been reinvigorated and that the conversation can be constructive," he wrote on Telegram.

"The Ukrainian and American teams, as well as the teams of our European partners, are in close contact, and I do hope that there will be a result," he said. "The bloodshed must be stopped, and we must ensure that the war is never reignited."

Later, the president said in another post that he had received "brief reports from our delegation members about the outcomes of their first meetings and talks."

"Currently, there is an understanding that the American proposals may include a number of elements based on Ukrainian perspectives and critical for Ukrainian national interests," he added. "Further work is ongoing to make all elements truly effective in achieving the main goal anticipated by our people: to finally put an end to the bloodshed and war."

In an earlier post on Sunday morning, Zelenskyy urged foreign partners to further strengthen Ukraine's air defenses, as long-range nightly Russian strikes continue. On Saturday night into Sunday morning, Russia launched 98 drones into Ukraine, according to the Ukrainian air force. Sixty-nine of the craft were shot down or suppressed.

"In parallel with the diplomatic track, we must do everything to strengthen our defense against such wicked Russian attacks," Zelenskyy wrote. "It is extremely important to speed up the implementation of all our agreements with partners regarding air defense systems and missiles for them."