Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Tamas]

To be clear - European gas imports from Russia are currently increasing and we're spending billions on Russian hydrocarbons.

Blaming the rest of the world for Russia's position is like blaming everyone else for Chinese industrial strength. It's very "we're all looking for the guy who did this".

Which undermines the "lets have peace what could happen" narrative. In no time we'll be back to pre-2022, there's too much complacency still.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Otto's historical analysis is not accurate.  Historically Russia has ceded territory for a number of reasons. 

In order to obtain a negotiated peace in the its war with Japan, Russia ceded territory, including all of Manchuria which it had only recently occupied).

It's simply not true to suggest that Russia only cedes territory after a long period of time.

It he was thinking about the Soviet era, Lenin cede large amounts of Soviet territory to get out of WWI.


If he was thinking of even more recent times, the Soviets got out of Afghanistan relatively quickly. Quicker than the Western powers managed.

If one is going to draw on historical examples to assert a modern reality. It should be a bit more accurate.

The territory that Russia controlled in Manchuria that was ceded in 1905 was never really part of Russia, it was a form of lease from the Qing Empire. Technically the Japanese just took over that lease, the land theoretically remained part of Qing China.

I believe in a legal fiction typical of the era even up until 1945 the Japanese referred to it as "leased."

You also read a lot of false narratives into my Statements--my point was that Russia does cede land, when it determines it is not cost effective to hold. I never said that is the only scenario where they cede land (for example they ceded land in WWI because they had been outright beaten on the battlefield and had to sue for peace); I also would argue the situation in Manchuria largely matches my claims--the specific territory involved had only been taken over a few years before being ceded to Japan, but the Russian Empire had been involved in varying levels of conflict for like 50 years over control of the greater Manchuria region.

[The Minsky Moment]

You can't have a peace treaty that boils down to "what land changes hands" without shredding the last 80 years of the rules-based order. This would just cause more wars. Next in line: Taiwan.

But what if you have no treaty (as per Tamas) but conflict lines are frozen with Russia occupying significant portion of Ukranian land?  What message does that send the PRC? I think the PRC would be satisfied with an endgame that leaves them in military control of Taiwan but with no official peace treaty.

Imagine two possible outcome of a China-Taiwan conflict.
1) PRC recognizes the independence of Taiwan and Taiwan signs a formal defense pact with the US, but sovereignty over the Kinmen islands is transferred to the PRC.
2) PRC overruns Taiwan and establishes military control; the ROC government in exile continues to resist. No peace treaty is signed.

In number 1, the principle of no recognition of territorial alternations by force is violated, in number 2, it is respected. But the PRC would view (1) as a defeat, (2) as a victory.

What matters is what happens on the ground, not in the documents.

[Josquius]

To be clear - European gas imports from Russia are currently increasing and we're spending billions on Russian hydrocarbons.

Blaming the rest of the world for Russia's position is like blaming everyone else for Chinese industrial strength. It's very "we're all looking for the guy who did this".

Haven't European gas imports from Russia dropped a lot?
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/

[Zanza]

Isn't Taiwan's legal position much more ambiguous than Russia trying to grab land in Ukraine or Georgia by force? 

I thought that de jure, but not de facto, Taiwan and China are one country. Similar to say Germany in the period from 1945 to 1972 (East and West Germany recognise each other - but not as foreign states).

[Sheilbh]

Haven't European gas imports from Russia dropped a lot?
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/

It has - but mainly pipeline gas. European imports of Russian LNG is up over 50% since before the war and currently increasing. Plus increasing import of re-exported oil goods.

Huge progress from 2022 - but I'm not sure one of the richest areas of the world that is most supportive of Ukraine gets to judge everyone else for not taking a harder line when we're still sending billions to Russia every year.

Isn't Taiwan's legal position much more ambiguous than Russia trying to grab land in Ukraine or Georgia by force?

I thought that de jure, but not de facto, Taiwan and China are one country. Similar to say Germany in the period from 1945 to 1972 (East and West Germany recognise each other - but not as foreign states).

Yeah - I think that's exactly right.

[crazy canuck]

Otto's historical analysis is not accurate.  Historically Russia has ceded territory for a number of reasons. 

In order to obtain a negotiated peace in the its war with Japan, Russia ceded territory, including all of Manchuria which it had only recently occupied).

It's simply not true to suggest that Russia only cedes territory after a long period of time.

It he was thinking about the Soviet era, Lenin cede large amounts of Soviet territory to get out of WWI.


If he was thinking of even more recent times, the Soviets got out of Afghanistan relatively quickly. Quicker than the Western powers managed.

If one is going to draw on historical examples to assert a modern reality. It should be a bit more accurate.

The territory that Russia controlled in Manchuria that was ceded in 1905 was never really part of Russia, it was a form of lease from the Qing Empire. Technically the Japanese just took over that lease, the land theoretically remained part of Qing China.

I believe in a legal fiction typical of the era even up until 1945 the Japanese referred to it as "leased."

You also read a lot of false narratives into my Statements--my point was that Russia does cede land, when it determines it is not cost effective to hold. I never said that is the only scenario where they cede land (for example they ceded land in WWI because they had been outright beaten on the battlefield and had to sue for peace); I also would argue the situation in Manchuria largely matches my claims--the specific territory involved had only been taken over a few years before being ceded to Japan, but the Russian Empire had been involved in varying levels of conflict for like 50 years over control of the greater Manchuria region.

The implication of your analysis being that Ukraine does belong to Russia.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You need psychiatric care. Or someone testing you for dementia.

[Josquius]

From Ruzzias POV it's certainly fair to say the places they've annexed "belong" to them.
I doubt they feel as strongly about this as they do the proper parts of Russia. With the Donbass especially lots of reports of the locals being treat as second class citizens with lower grade passports.
But it is a step above just occupied territory in their eyes.

[Sheilbh]

From the eyes of Putin's Russian state I don't think they consider Ukraine a legitimate or meaningfully independent state at all. At best, it's contested territory.

[Zoupa]

You can't have a peace treaty that boils down to "what land changes hands" without shredding the last 80 years of the rules-based order. This would just cause more wars. Next in line: Taiwan.

But what if you have no treaty (as per Tamas) but conflict lines are frozen with Russia occupying significant portion of Ukranian land?  What message does that send the PRC? I think the PRC would be satisfied with an endgame that leaves them in military control of Taiwan but with no official peace treaty.

Imagine two possible outcome of a China-Taiwan conflict.
1) PRC recognizes the independence of Taiwan and Taiwan signs a formal defense pact with the US, but sovereignty over the Kinmen islands is transferred to the PRC.
2) PRC overruns Taiwan and establishes military control; the ROC government in exile continues to resist. No peace treaty is signed.

In number 1, the principle of no recognition of territorial alternations by force is violated, in number 2, it is respected. But the PRC would view (1) as a defeat, (2) as a victory.

What matters is what happens on the ground, not in the documents.

I mean, sure. In any case, as a French general said, a document signed by russians is about as valuable as a raccoon's fart. Every single treaty signed between russia and Ukraine since 1991 has been broken, by russia. Hence Ukrainians not seeing the point in the West pushing for negotiations. It serves no purpose. Until russia or at least its army collapses, the war will continue.

[Josquius]

It's not the west pushing for negotiations. It's signs from Ukraine of war weariness and a move towards this.

[Sheilbh]

It's not the west pushing for negotiations. It's signs from Ukraine of war weariness and a move towards this.

Perhaps - I think it may be wanting to make a credible display of reasonableness to allies and partners (and, indeed, non-friends and partners like China).

[Josquius]

It's not the west pushing for negotiations. It's signs from Ukraine of war weariness and a move towards this.

Perhaps - I think it may be wanting to make a credible display of reasonableness to allies and partners (and, indeed, non-friends and partners like China).

This could explain the language from the leadership. Not the reports of attitudes on the ground.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I got an alert for 23-Jan-2023 From a reply from DGuller in this thread. Anyone remember what it was?