Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Admiral Yi]

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?

Because there are only two ways to end a war: unconditional surrender or negotiated terms.

[Josquius]

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?

All of the above to some extent. Though 1 very lightly and only behind the scenes as its obviously ukraines choice.

[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?

Because there are only two ways to end a war: unconditional surrender or negotiated terms.

Even so, rewarding the aggressor does not have to be, and should not be, part of the deal.

[Tamas]

Anyways while defestism and willingness to sell out the Ukrainians gains ground on this forum, I heard that for a bit spot price of LNG went below zero on the Dutch commodities market recently due to Europe receiving more of it then they can process.

Russia's defeat is becoming increasingly strategic. They burned their economic hold on Europe which they will never get back, for the chance to burn the myth of their military power, and their economy is going to the shitter as well.

The only question that remains is whether Putin takes the rest of the world with him when he falls.

[Josquius]

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.

[The Brain]

Anyways while defestism and willingness to sell out the Ukrainians gains ground on this forum, I heard that for a bit spot price of LNG went below zero on the Dutch commodities market recently due to Europe receiving more of it then they can process.

Russia's defeat is becoming increasingly strategic. They burned their economic hold on Europe which they will never get back, for the chance to burn the myth of their military power, and their economy is going to the shitter as well.

The only question that remains is whether Putin takes the rest of the world with him when he falls.

It's fascinating that ordinary Russians think that all that self-harm is worth dying for.

[Admiral Yi]

Even so, rewarding the aggressor does not have to be, and should not be, part of the deal.

If you think there are terms that Russia would accept which do not reward the aggressor, let's hear them.  Otherwise you're arguing for a Ukrainian drive on Moscow and unconditional surrender.

As things stand now.  Obviously the front line could change.

[HVC]

Anyways while defestism and willingness to sell out the Ukrainians gains ground on this forum, I heard that for a bit spot price of LNG went below zero on the Dutch commodities market recently due to Europe receiving more of it then they can process.

Russia's defeat is becoming increasingly strategic. They burned their economic hold on Europe which they will never get back, for the chance to burn the myth of their military power, and their economy is going to the shitter as well.

The only question that remains is whether Putin takes the rest of the world with him when he falls.

10-20 years from now Russia will happily by supplying oil again because people don't learn and money makes the world go round.

[Jacob]

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?

[The Brain]

Even so, rewarding the aggressor does not have to be, and should not be, part of the deal.

If you think there are terms that Russia would accept which do not reward the aggressor, let's hear them.  Otherwise you're arguing for a Ukrainian drive on Moscow and unconditional surrender.

As things stand now.  Obviously the front line could change.

Why would Ukraine make peace right now?

[HVC]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

If a nation's peer powers do not acknowledge said nation's sphere of influence, that nation does not possess that sphere of influence. A sphere of influence is given, not taken.

[Berkut]

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?

Because there are only two ways to end a war: unconditional surrender or negotiated terms.

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

Fair enough.  Though as a minor quibble the US and North Vietnam did sign the Paris Peace Accords.