Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Josquius]

No, there is one side losing and just leaving.

Granted, there is often some fake "negotiation" that means nothing, but there are certainly more then the two options above.

The US just left both Afghanistan and Vietnam, for example. The USSR just left Aghanistan.

In those cases, the negotiation was on the terms of the losers losing, not some kind of negotiation between equal parties.

Russia does not need an "off ramp", and neither does Putin. They can leave anytime they want.

Not comparable situations at all.
In those cases the foreigners didn't lose to another nation. They were fighting groups within an ally and decided to pull out, saying fighting the insurgents was entirely up to the host nation now.
Plus... The US did sign a treaty in Vietnam.

More importantly pretty different situation where you've a ocean between Vietnam and the US and the central Asian steppe between most of the Soviet union and lightly armed mujhadeen. Just going home and fighting ending by default is an option there - when you've major cities in artillery range of the border it isn't.

Josq, I'm just as bad as analogies as you are, so let me give you one. You live in an apartment. Your neighboring apartment building attacks yours. Makes some tenants disappear, brutalizes others, and moves some of their tenants into the building. Now you want them  to have a referendum to decide to annex  those rooms in which the tenant make up has been radically altered. It's just asinine

Highlighted where your analogy fails.
I don't want the attacker to have a referendum. I want the attacker to stop attacking and a neutral party to oversee a referendum.

Also as well as a referendum on whether the apartments should be annexed it would equally, and far more importantly, be one to highlight the people want the attacker to fuck off. Giving them an actual voice to speak above the attackers claims of doing it for their sake.

Finally as mentioned this should be a fair referendum. Based on the pre invasion population. Not on whoever has been moved in since the annexation.

Anyways while defestism and willingness to sell out the Ukrainians gains ground on this forum...

It's just Yi, Josq, and Dorsey so far isn't it?

I don't know why you're including me on this. I'm seeing far more selling out of Ukraine from others.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know why you're including me on this. I'm seeing far more selling out of Ukraine from others.

Who might that be? 

[Solmyr]

Maybe people understand this better with analogy?
Donbas is Kyivs girlfriend.
Moscow has long had his eye on her and one day decides to kidnap her. Under duress Donbas is forced to say she doesn't love Kyiv, he beats her, and she wants to be with Moscow.
A fight breaks out between Kyivs gang and Moscows gang with huge amounts of death and destruction occurring on a daily basis. Poor Donbas keeps getting hit in the cross fire

What's the solution?
Berkut and Tamas would have that Kyiv and Moscow keep up the fight. Kyiv is obviously in the right and will win eventually so.... Who cares if some of his gang die and his business gets burned down and Donbas is just a corpse when he gets her back? He's in the right and that's what matters.

I'm suggesting... A neutral party takes Donbas aside and just fucking asks her the truth.
We all know what her answer will be. There was no conception of her leaving Kyiv until Moscow attacked. Yes its a pain she has to be even asked. But vs having all this fighting going on and her friends dying? By far a cheaper and more convenient option. Most importantly hearing it directly from her mouth would really matter.

Moscow obviously knows what would happen. He won't agree. But asking for this shows even more firmly who is in the right in this situation. The fence sitting position would become less tenable which helps Kyiv out.

In your analogy, Donbass has so much trauma from all the rape and brainwashing by Moscow, she'll need years of therapy before being able to give a coherent answer.

[Berkut]

sad

No, there is one side losing and just leaving.

Granted, there is often some fake "negotiation" that means nothing, but there are certainly more then the two options above.

The US just left both Afghanistan and Vietnam, for example. The USSR just left Aghanistan.

In those cases, the negotiation was on the terms of the losers losing, not some kind of negotiation between equal parties.

Russia does not need an "off ramp", and neither does Putin. They can leave anytime they want.

Not comparable situations at all.
In those cases the foreigners didn't lose to another nation. They were fighting groups within an ally and decided to pull out, saying fighting the insurgents was entirely up to the host nation now.

That is *exactly* what Russia is and would claim. That they had to intercede to protect their poor Russian allies fighting for their freedom from the Nazi's in Ukraine, who want desperately to join their fellow Russians. Maybe we could have a referendum on it!

[Berkut]

Maybe people understand this better with analogy?
Donbas is Kyivs girlfriend.
Moscow has long had his eye on her and one day decides to kidnap her. Under duress Donbas is forced to say she doesn't love Kyiv, he beats her, and she wants to be with Moscow.
A fight breaks out between Kyivs gang and Moscows gang with huge amounts of death and destruction occurring on a daily basis. Poor Donbas keeps getting hit in the cross fire

What's the solution?
Berkut and Tamas would have that Kyiv and Moscow keep up the fight. Kyiv is obviously in the right and will win eventually so.... Who cares if some of his gang die and his business gets burned down and Donbas is just a corpse when he gets her back? He's in the right and that's what matters.

I'm suggesting... A neutral party takes Donbas aside and just fucking asks her the truth.
We all know what her answer will be. There was no conception of her leaving Kyiv until Moscow attacked. Yes its a pain she has to be even asked. But vs having all this fighting going on and her friends dying? By far a cheaper and more convenient option. Most importantly hearing it directly from her mouth would really matter.

Moscow obviously knows what would happen. He won't agree. But asking for this shows even more firmly who is in the right in this situation. The fence sitting position would become less tenable which helps Kyiv out.

In your analogy, Donbass has so much trauma from all the rape and brainwashing by Moscow, she'll need years of therapy before being able to give a coherent answer.

More importantly, in his analogy the gang that is in the right is winning the fight handily, and the entire idea of "lets just ask her what she thinks" is clearly the idea of the gang getting their asses kicked as a way to give them a moment to regroup and find some reinforcements.

Further, on several occasions in the past, the Moscow group did the same thing, and then immediately turned around and attacked another friend right after promising that they would not do that anymore.

Why some third party is trying to step in and help Moscow end the fight they are losing badly is rather beyond everyone else.

[Berkut]

A better anology.

Imagine someone in say, November of 1944 starting to tell everyone we should probably stop fighting the Germans and Japanese, so maybe we can have a referendum in Poland and Singapore and China to see if the people in those places want to stay under the Axis. Maybe even Normandy as well, why we are at it, after all, even though they've been liberated, who can really know if they pine for the friendly Nazi leadership? After all, lots of people are dying, and who knows, maybe some of them really like sauerkraut.

And don't worry, we can most definitely trust them to definitely absolutely not use the stoppage to regroup and get ready to fight some more, because they would never do anything like that for sure, what with their excellent track record of always living up to their agreements and all.

[Josquius]

That is *exactly* what Russia is and would claim. That they had to intercede to protect their poor Russian allies fighting for their freedom from the Nazi's in Ukraine, who want desperately to join their fellow Russians. Maybe we could have a referendum on it!

Who cares what Russia claims, it wouldn't change the reality that they're obviously at war with Ukraine and directly attacking Ukrainian territory.
Even if you take their side on the people's republics being legit governments and they were merely operating in those countries at their requests this doesn't explain all the damage caused elsewhere in Ukraine.

And yes? A referendum is the entire thing you're freaking out about?

Who might that be? 

Berkut.

[alfred russel]

It's just Yi, Josq, and Dorsey so far isn't it?

I have posted nothing that a rational person could interpret as selling out the Ukrainians.  I outlined what I consider a good course of action for Ukraine to follow.

If you want to call differing expectations about the future course of battle "defeatism" then I think that's silly, and as a silly propaganda term it can't be rebutted.

I'm with Yi...I don't think it is fair to say I'm trying to sell out Ukrainians.

[alfred russel]

It is fairly obvious you are throwing around the term "sphere of influence" without any coherence as to what you mean. Modern Putin apologists are not using a Merriam-Webster definition that is vague to begin with, they are advancing the argument that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is "justified" because America "violated Russia's sphere of interest with NATO expansion" that suggests the West violated a norm and Russia's behavior is valid as a response to the violation of that norm.

I think I'm coherent...I've given you a few third party sources that have definitions that are within the scope of how I've been using the term. You may not like those sources but I think on a message board it is fair to use terms within the dictonary definition.

I don't know what modern Putin apologists are arguing, do you have a name that is arguing what you say above? However, if they are arguing that they had some sort of legal agreement as discussed in your encyclopedia article referencing something in the 1880s, that is preposterous because such explicit legal agreements don't exist.

There was never a norm that any country in the Cold War had an area of exclusive interest that overlapped other states, and that no party would violate.

No kidding! We even transmitted radio free europe into the USSR and they tried to get communist revolutions in western states. We wanted them to collapse and they wanted us to collapse. We still understood that they would operate with some impunity within their zone. 

As I expected you are not talking about anything coherent or meaningful, I will respond to posts of yours on this topic if and only if you manage to rectify that, which seems unlikely.

Sounds like you don't have a name you can provide.

[alfred russel]

A better anology.

Imagine someone in say, November of 1944 starting to tell everyone we should probably stop fighting the Germans and Japanese, so maybe we can have a referendum in Poland and Singapore and China to see if the people in those places want to stay under the Axis. Maybe even Normandy as well, why we are at it, after all, even though they've been liberated, who can really know if they pine for the friendly Nazi leadership? After all, lots of people are dying, and who knows, maybe some of them really like sauerkraut.

And don't worry, we can most definitely trust them to definitely absolutely not use the stoppage to regroup and get ready to fight some more, because they would never do anything like that for sure, what with their excellent track record of always living up to their agreements and all.

To make this analogy work, lets add in that Germany has enough nuclear weapons to end civilization as we know it.

[The Brain]

Analogies, by their very nature, are not very helpful.

[alfred russel]

Analogies, by their very nature, are not very helpful.

WWII is a terribly strained analogy because it isn't about just a border or influence but an attempt by Germany to exterminate and enslave populations in neighboring territories. If we are to draw a world war analogy, it is more like WWI. Suppose we are in mid 1917, the US has entered the war, and you are one of the smart people that can see the writing on the wall for Germany. Should France consider peace with Germany keeping Alsace–Lorraine? I'd argue they should consider it, because while continuing the war would obviously regain the territory for France, why should anyone give a fuck? Within the lifetimes of the soldiers that would be fighting in that last year of the war that German - French border would lose lots of its meaning: these days you will hardly notice passing from one to the other.

If you want something from US history, there was a time that the Pacific Northwest boundary was a major contention point and some people wanted war over the boundary. But why should any of us care if Seattle is in the US or Vancouver in Canada? The two countries are more or less the same and you can freely cross the border.

[Josquius]

In your analogy, Donbass has so much trauma from all the rape and brainwashing by Moscow, she'll need years of therapy before being able to give a coherent answer.

An excuse no doubt that Russia would use in bad faith.
To counter this we simply need to make into the treaty conditions that entitle the provinces to call further referenda in the future if they're met.

A better anology.

Imagine someone in say, November of 1944 starting to tell everyone we should probably stop fighting the Germans and Japanese, so maybe we can have a referendum in Poland and Singapore and China to see if the people in those places want to stay under the Axis. Maybe even Normandy as well, why we are at it, after all, even though they've been liberated, who can really know if they pine for the friendly Nazi leadership? After all, lots of people are dying, and who knows, maybe some of them really like sauerkraut.

And don't worry, we can most definitely trust them to definitely absolutely not use the stoppage to regroup and get ready to fight some more, because they would never do anything like that for sure, what with their excellent track record of always living up to their agreements and all.

This analogy just doesn't work.
In 1944 90%+ of the world's power was on one of the two sides in the war. There was no conceivable neutral party to act as a mediator and run the referendum.
Or do you seriously think the Swiss were up to taking over running the Nazi's occupied territories and organising referenda on such a scale?
There's a reason analogies usually boil things down to simpler smaller scales than ramping them up to a million.

More importantly, in his analogy the gang that is in the right is winning the fight handily, and the entire idea of "lets just ask her what she thinks" is clearly the idea of the gang getting their asses kicked as a way to give them a moment to regroup and find some reinforcements.

Further, on several occasions in the past, the Moscow group did the same thing, and then immediately turned around and attacked another friend right after promising that they would not do that anymore.

Why some third party is trying to step in and help Moscow end the fight they are losing badly is rather beyond everyone else.

The idea that we can keep going until Russia ceases to exist is just daft at best.
Obviously Russia is going to rebuild when the fighting stops. Ukraine is going to do this too. This isn't so much 'fine', but it is inevitable. Key in the post-war world would be making sure from Ukraine and the west's end that Russia can't successfully re-invade.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The idea that the only endings to this are "complete defeat of Ukraine", "complete defeat of Russia", or conceding things to Russia, which is the core of your premise, is false. Further, it is up to the Ukrainians to decide if they want to concede things to Russia. We can decide how long we continue to send money and material to Ukraine, that is the decision we get to make given our current level of commitment to the war. This isn't really that complicated, you are making it complicated because for some reason you think you're clever that you discovered the idea that conflicts can end through negotiated settlement, without understanding the various ways conflicts can end and the implications of what you're suggesting.

You are also presenting the false premise that both the rest of us here and the West broadly aren't aware of some of the negatives of the war continuing, which is stupid and wrong. You are also presenting the false premise that we think we have to hold out until Russia collapses, which also literally no one in this thread has expressed that idea nor have I seen any serious Western policymaker express that idea. What we are against is your stupid suggestion that we advocate and support--which is the same thing as pressure, Ukraine, in public, to make concessions to Russia. All that does is weaken Ukraine's position, and is an inherently Putinist stance.

[crazy canuck]

It's just Yi, Josq, and Dorsey so far isn't it?

I have posted nothing that a rational person could interpret as selling out the Ukrainians.  I outlined what I consider a good course of action for Ukraine to follow.

If you want to call differing expectations about the future course of battle "defeatism" then I think that's silly, and as a silly propaganda term it can't be rebutted.

I'm with Yi...I don't think it is fair to say I'm trying to sell out Ukrainians.

The one thing you got right is you are with Yi.

A better anology.

Imagine someone in say, November of 1944 starting to tell everyone we should probably stop fighting the Germans and Japanese, so maybe we can have a referendum in Poland and Singapore and China to see if the people in those places want to stay under the Axis. Maybe even Normandy as well, why we are at it, after all, even though they've been liberated, who can really know if they pine for the friendly Nazi leadership? After all, lots of people are dying, and who knows, maybe some of them really like sauerkraut.

And don't worry, we can most definitely trust them to definitely absolutely not use the stoppage to regroup and get ready to fight some more, because they would never do anything like that for sure, what with their excellent track record of always living up to their agreements and all.

To make this analogy work, lets add in that Germany has enough nuclear weapons to end civilization as we know it.

To make it even better, let's add the fact that they threatened many many many many many times to use it. But never did.