Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Legbiter]

OK, I don't see this reported elsewhere, but the source is the Twitter blue-checkmarked "Advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine".

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1587412820181893123

Russia will abide by the Ukraine grain deal if Ukraine guarantees the safety of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

Erdogan invested a lot of prestige in brokering the grain deal. Now that Russia didn't do shit yesterday he'll continue the deal with Ukraine escorting any future grain convoys. The Russian blockade is thus effectively over unless they want to go to war with NATO.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Did the USSR has more influence in eastern europe?  Sure - it had all kinds of troops stationed there, it had installed ideologically friendly governments there.  Bus was the USSR supreme in the region?  Did no other nations have influence there? 

No.

I mean the governments were both communist and locked into military support for the USSR through alliances that were completely against the wishes of the population. Hell in some cases industry was even shipped out from eastern europe to help industrialize the USSR.

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.

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. There were oppositional military alliances that said if either side violated the territorial sovereignty of the other, it would lead to a large alliance on alliance general war. That is not what has occurred. The treaties that bound Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries together are no longer in force, no one has violated the territory of a Russian ally.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also while online encyclopedias are a poor source for actually learning about international relations, Britannica has a much better explanation as to how this term is actually used in foreign policy and poli sci circles than does Merriam-Webster or your quote from Wikipedia:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sphere-of-influence

It is in the latter, legal significance that the term first gained currency in the 1880s when the colonial expansion of the European powers in Africa and Asia was nearing its completion. The last stage of that expansion was characterized by the endeavour of all major colonial powers to carry on the mutual competition for colonies peacefully through agreed-upon procedures. Agreements on spheres of influence served this purpose. Thus, the agreement between Great Britain and Germany in May 1885, the first to make use of the term, provided for "a separation and definition of their respective spheres of influence in the territories on the Gulf of Guinea." This agreement was followed by many of a similar nature, of which article VII of the agreement between Great Britain and Germany of July 1, 1890, concerning East Africa, may be regarded as typical. Its text is as follows:

I posit just as I said before--the USSR/Russia never had any established, recognized sphere of influence outside of its own borders. In fact, Western leaders including a long line of U.S. Presidents referred to the vassal states of the Warsaw Pact as "enslaved", "subject", "captive", "chained" etc, and continually denounced Russia's behavior, and sought to undermine it throughout the Cold War through espionage, spreading of propaganda, funding of dissident groups et al. This has very little in common with the 1880s origin of the term sphere of influence in which several European Great Powers came to formalized, respectful agreements to exploit colonial regions without coming to blows with one another.

[Tamas]

Yeah conquering by armies and then occupying isn't sphere of influence, that's conquest.

[Jacob]

I take a different tack on this - spheres of influence are real enough (if somewhat ambiguously defined), and both the USSR and Russia had (have) them.

I mean, I think it's fairly obvious that Russia has long exerted a strong influence on the affairs of some of the former SSRs - including until not that long ago Ukraine. That fits my understanding of a "sphere of influence."

Even so - Ukraine exiting Russia's sphere of influence is not a justification for war.

[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. 

[Josquius]

Holding the referendum would on its own provide post-fact casus belli to the Russians in their reading at least and more importantly as it has been explained many times, the result of foreign aggression cannot be a referendum on the topic the foreign aggressor was pushing.

There were zero calls from Russia or in fact from those regions for a referendum before the 2014 Invasion so calling for one now is taking Russia's side in this blatant aggression, simple as that, I am sorry.

So Russia keeps shelling Ukraine, torturing whoever they fancy and generally making the world a worse place. But at least we get to avoid calling their bluff and watching them twist themselves in knots- not being seen that we might be giving a concession to Russia no matter how much of a poisoned pill it truly would be for them, that's what really matters.

Yeah no.
"Russia fuck off" as desirable as it may be is not a sound basis for negotiations.
Russia is never going to unilaterally surrender. There's not going to be a Hitler in his bunker moment. That isn't even something Ukraine wants.
An arrangement will have to be reached with Russia at some point - and getting them to stop murdering people and back on their side of the border ASAP is the priority over all else.

Plus of course, key point here - there would be no referendum. Russia doesn't want the people in the occupied regions to have self determination. The sole gain of this is in calling out Russias BS and further weakening their excuses.

[Tamas]

Yeah no.
"Russia fuck off" as desirable as it may be is not a sound basis for negotiations.
Russia is never going to unilaterally surrender. There's not going to be a Hitler in his bunker moment. That isn't even something Ukraine wants.
An arrangement will have to be reached with Russia at some point - and getting them to stop murdering people and back on their side of the border ASAP is the priority over all else.

What does this have to do with holding a referendum on the territories Russia claimed as theirs?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I take a different tack on this - spheres of influence are real enough (if somewhat ambiguously defined), and both the USSR and Russia had (have) them.

I mean, I think it's fairly obvious that Russia has long exerted a strong influence on the affairs of some of the former SSRs - including until not that long ago Ukraine. That fits my understanding of a "sphere of influence."

Even so - Ukraine exiting Russia's sphere of influence is not a justification for war.

Again, there is literally a historical usage of the term sphere of influence that began with agreements to not fight over land between European Great Powers in the colonization of Africa. It had a very specific conceptual meaning: an agreement to give exclusive operations, recognized by mutual parties, who were also themselves relatively powerful states.

The modern day foreign policy guys who are posting pro-Putin shit about spheres of influence are creating an entirely fake association with this concept when they say Russia had a "sphere of influence." It never did. There was never a norm of us respecting anything about the USSR other than its own national borders, during the Cold War or with Russia after.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So Russia keeps shelling Ukraine, torturing whoever they fancy and generally making the world a worse place. But at least we get to avoid calling their bluff and watching them twist themselves in knots- not being seen that we might be giving a concession to Russia no matter how much of a poisoned pill it truly would be for them, that's what really matters.

It's Ukraine's call if they want to negotiate and concede territory, not ours.

Yeah no.
"Russia fuck off" as desirable as it may be is not a sound basis for negotiations.
Russia is never going to unilaterally surrender. There's not going to be a Hitler in his bunker moment. That isn't even something Ukraine wants.
An arrangement will have to be reached with Russia at some point - and getting them to stop murdering people and back on their side of the border ASAP is the priority over all else.

I mean there is, in fact, no reason an arrangement has to be reached. The conflict could just freeze and enter into an unstable truce. There have been a number of conflicts to follow this model. There is also nothing going on that makes me think your plan to use the UN to endorse Putin's war of territorial aggression as a good approach for making a settlement happen sooner rather than later.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

[Josquius]

Yeah no.
"Russia fuck off" as desirable as it may be is not a sound basis for negotiations.
Russia is never going to unilaterally surrender. There's not going to be a Hitler in his bunker moment. That isn't even something Ukraine wants.
An arrangement will have to be reached with Russia at some point - and getting them to stop murdering people and back on their side of the border ASAP is the priority over all else.

What does this have to do with holding a referendum on the territories Russia claimed as theirs?

A negotiated agreement can't be totally one sided.
It's offering to give Russia something that they claim to care about but which wouldn't cause any harm.

[Tamas]

Yeah no.
"Russia fuck off" as desirable as it may be is not a sound basis for negotiations.
Russia is never going to unilaterally surrender. There's not going to be a Hitler in his bunker moment. That isn't even something Ukraine wants.
An arrangement will have to be reached with Russia at some point - and getting them to stop murdering people and back on their side of the border ASAP is the priority over all else.

What does this have to do with holding a referendum on the territories Russia claimed as theirs?

A negotiated agreement can't be totally one sided.
It's offering to give Russia something that they claim to care about.

Yeah and that is what we cannot do. An aggressor of this kind cannot be compensated. If they want to keep an official state of war and bankrupt themselves while they rot behind their borders with the occasional skirmish with Ukrainians in a style of North Korea, or Iran, or Cuba, they are welcome to do so.

[Josquius]

Yeah and that is what we cannot do. An aggressor of this kind cannot be compensated.

This is just fundamentally illogical. Nobody is compensating Russia. In this scenario they are the ones paying compensation.

If they want to keep an official state of war and bankrupt themselves while they rot behind their borders with the occasional skirmish with Ukrainians in a style of North Korea, or Iran, or Cuba, they are welcome to do so.

You're forgetting the people of Ukraine here. And to a lesser extent innocents in Russia.
"ha a pox on Russia, let them destroy themselves!" sounds clever but think about what this actually means on a human level.

It's Ukraine's call if they want to negotiate and concede territory, not ours.

Yes?
Not sure of the point here.

I mean there is, in fact, no reason an arrangement has to be reached. The conflict could just freeze and enter into an unstable truce. There have been a number of conflicts to follow this model. There is also nothing going on that makes me think your plan to use the UN to endorse Putin's war of territorial aggression as a good approach for making a settlement happen sooner rather than later.

Very possible. But not a desirable outcome.
I would hope for regime change in Russia and an agreement being reached to create a stable peace that isn't permanently ready to blow again.

[Jacob]

Josq, are you arguing:

1) What the West should pressure Ukraine to pursue, because you think it's for the best?

2) What you would endorse if you were Ukrainian?

3) What you think would be a theoretically fair resolution, if only Ukraine and Russia saw it that way too?