War in Ukraine

Russia is clearly responsible as they invaded Ukraine. This of course can be said of all wars where responsibility becomes apparent. While responsibility is always at the forefront the actions taken by Russia are justified in Putin's assessment.

We have had multiple discussions on the history and wars in Ukraine and it matters not what the US, NATO or the UN has to say about it. Ukraine has been used as a pawn and remains this festering wound that never heals for years. In short Ukraine has been raped and pillaged on the global stage from all sides of the fence.

 

Enough with admiring the problem. What specific demands of Russia are you willing to comply with to avoid this long winter?

1. Stopping all material aid of Ukraine and leaving them to their fate?

2. Recognition of all Russian land seizures in Georgia and Ukraine since 2008?

3. Allow Russia to strip Ukraine of its armed forces and set up whatever puppet government they see fit?

4. Deny Sweden and Finland entry to NATO?

5. Removal of any NATO and/or EU members that Russia objects to?

Precisely, where do you draw the line and say we will bend over forwards not one more inch for Russia?

 

I'm not sure any of those items are prerequisites to a truce between the two sides and Ukraine's ability to drive Russia out completely is still very, very questionable. Especially in light of the infrastructure damage Russia is imposing with these missile strikes. Yes, the Ukrainians have made some gains in the past month or so, but that really doesn't guarantee anything.

 

It is not an admiration of the problem to speak of what is unfolding before our very eyes. It is an acknowledgement of where we are and where we are headed. It is war and I have also stated half stepping in not a solution.

Now let me pose this question to you. We continue supplying aid to Ukraine and Ukraine is destroyed. Are you willing to walk away at that point? Where does it end?

I draw the line when Russia invades our shores. I've made this clear in multiple posts. This is a European issue and Europe should deal with it. It is ironic that all of the work that went into resolving the land spats after WW II are coming back to bite us all in the shorts and now we see ourselves barreling toward WW III.

 

Read three pages back, and you’ll easily see for yourself.

 

Safe to say that if it were not for the prospect of nuclear annihilation on a global scale that WWIII would already be in full swing. Sadly, that may not last if this spirals out of control. That said, it is not in our interests to allow Putin to expand his empire.

 

May I assume then that if the decision was yours alone today, then you would have no problem complying with any of the conditions I listed above?

And, yes, whining about a problem without proposing a solution or even a plan to get to a solution is the military textbook definition of “admiring the problem.”

 

Early America called and wants its foreign policy back.

What was left of the once long-standing US isolationism died for good when the last strong man started gobbling up sovereign European states. It's not coming back. We made a deal with the free world to supply protection from authoritarian bullies, support democracy, and support open trade. An arrangement that has served us and the world quite well in the last 75 years. The willingness to just give up because of discomfort is astonishing.

 

It sounds like you’re saying that the conditions I’ve listed are not within the scope of what you would consider for conflict termination. So I’m asking directly now: You want Russia to stop hostilities in Ukraine and turn the gas on again before winter. What are you willing to pay Russia to do it? You know they aren’t going to do it for free, especially with the blood, treasure, and international good will they have spent to this point.

 

I agree it is not in our interest. Like many things in the world that are not in our interest we have to live with it and make the best out of a bad case scenario.

 

We don't have a treaty with Ukraine. We have one with NATO states, but not Ukraine. There is no deal we have with Ukraine other than one that's unwritten.

 

I would listen to a deal that grants autonomy for the 4 Donbass regions and for Ukraine to agree to remain neutral and not join NATO. Reason being the 4 Donbass regions are majority ethnic Russian and Russian speaking and Ukraine is not in a position to join NATO for a long time anyway. So, in reality, not really giving up much. The real issue will be on the Ukrainian side as Zelenskyy is the head of a movement that will not rest until Russia is driven out. So, the challenge here would be the West convincing Kyiv to settle.

 

I gave a solution twice in this thread. It is Ukraine that is in dispute and I said we take and occupy Ukraine. Our government moves in and make it a US territory. If Russia wishes to dispute our claim then by all means take Russia as well.

I also made clear that no matter how this turns out no one can make Russia turn the gas back on. I will say Russia is not going to do so without concessions. In the mean time Europe is scrambling trying to assure their populations there will be ample gas provided restrictions are followed. Until this is resolved and Russia chooses to turn the gas back on Europe will be dealing with this problem for years to come. They do not have the gas to support a military operation let alone service their populations. In my opinion it is better to back off and live to fight another day because we both know the armed conflict will require the lions share of US support and troops.

The other aspect of this war that has not been discussed yet is cyber warfare. We are now witnessing some movement in that arena. I expect more to follow and the damaging effects of such warfare are yet to be determined especially where infrastructure is compromised. Everything from water sanitation to electrical grids to communications becomes a potential target.

For those that want to join NATO so be it. I have no issue with it although Russia certainly would. I would tell them before you get any assurance from NATO you better be prepared to provide the funds and resources necessary for a war.

 

That agreement was NATO of which Ukraine is not a member.

 

… and this is why we don’t have boots on the ground and NATO aircraft maintaining the airspace over Ukraine.

I think initially the west assumed Ukraine would probably lose, but wanted to make sure the Ukrainians had the tools to engage guerrilla warfare to keep up their fight as long as possible. Only when Russia’s military advances faltered did Ukraine start getting artillery from the west. There is now belief that Russia cannot win by conventional means. Hell if NATO offered protection to Ukraine it would be over. Which is why they’ve now essentially resorted to terrorism on civilians. Obviously the big concern is the evil imp Putin will resort to “unconventional” means to achieve partial goals, at which point NATO will basically have to act. So i think the idea of a “no fly zone” at the very least has to be considered to pre-empt all that.

 

But later in the post, you're calling for a no-fly zone, which would be NATO maintaining the airspace over Ukraine.

 

The treaty obligates the response (an attack on 1 is an attack on all), it doesn’t preclude response. If Ukraine were in NATO it would have been an all out defense from day 1 as required by treaty.

Obviously NATO members have already been the primary donors supplying Ukraine with self defense capabilities, it’s a more measured type response. I think at this stage the no fly zone would make sense, but more likely Ukraine just gets a bunch of anti-air assistance rather than NATO flown planes.

 

Which is why we don't have boots on the ground. The deal is like a social contract. You promote, democracy and free trade (and trade with us!), and we'll make sure no a-hole takes you over.

When did I speak of NATO

 

You didn't but that is why Ukraine does not have the support of boots on the ground or air support. We all agree Russia is the aggressor but to assume every nation on the planet is obligated to come to your aid because of some moral obligation is inherently short sighted.

 

No. Assuming the best interests of the western world are served by allowing authoritarian regimes to take what they want is short sighted.