War in Ukraine

Was I the only one who looked like this when I read the above?

Yes, Obama checked Russian aggression for eight years, except for Russia’s unanswered land grabs of Crimea and Donbas.

But, in seriousness, if you have a framework for peace that both sides can live with, propose it here. It’s a free move. Lots of issues here, any of which if not settled would represent walk-away points from either or both sides. Where do you set the borders? How do you guarantee Ukraine’s future sovereignty and security? Ukraine’s freedom to join international organizations, like any other sovereign nation, runs at cross purposes to what Russia feels is its right to restrict Ukraine. How do you reconcile that?

If there isn’t an answer that both sides can live with, presently, then the only course of action is to fight it out until either Russia imposes peace on its terms or Ukraine exhausts Russia.

 

This is cool.
"You have angered Ukrainians": Prytula and Sternenko are raising funds for RAM II UAV kamikaze drones • Mezha.Media

 

Before I answer your very pertinent questions, can I ask you one? Do you believe a scenario could have occurred in the past year where Ukraine have gone to NATO with a settlement proposal and have been told by NATO something to the tune of “if you want to continue to receive our weapons, you won’t ever agree to anything like that”?

 

It’s like the smell of napalm in the morning BBQ’ing Russians.

 

Do you think the mig 29s will help ukraine or is air defense too good to get penetration and do damage to targets outside himar range? Crimean bridge? Rail bridges?

 

I stipulate that scenario could very well have occurred.

 

MiG-29s are fighters with limited, if any, air-to-ground capability. So can they directly hit deep targets effectively? Probably not. Indirectly, can they escort attack or bomber aircraft to keep away enemy fighters. Probably. But as you suggest the enemy IADS, which while not as good as we were all led to believe, still gets a large vote in what enemy aircraft get beyond the close fight and what they can do when they get there. An Air Force planner could give you a better answer, but my gut is that the Ukrainian Air Force (even with F-16s) can’t do much with manned aircraft against those high-value deep targets you mention. I think their real value is in neutralizing the Russian Air Force in its deep fight. The Russians can keep hitting fixed area targets with not-terribly-accurate cruise missiles, but they don’t have the capability to target, say, logistics columns or reinforcements on the supply routes unless they can get air superiority, which the Ukrainian Air Force is still effectively resisting.

 

Exactly aircraft aren’t what they really need. Give them flocks of Kamakazi drones and the long range version of the HIMAR’s. Spoken as a civilian…

 

I happen to believe the same. And so, unfortunately, I don't think there is going to be a diplomatic solution this time around. I think NATO has decided to shed blood in Ukraine, but they're exhausting all of their options before they actually dip the toe of NATO soldiers in the proverbial water. I think there's a good chance there have been a number of proposals that the Ukrainians would have accepted, even if begrudgingly so, but they were strongly cautioned not to by NATO allies. As the war has played out, you see NATO allies inching closer and closer to direct involvement.

So I do believe there have been proposals on the table that would have likely addressed many of the questions you raised in your previous post regarding borders, Ukraine's sovereignty, security, Ukraine's possible ascension to NATO, etc and I believe there is a pretty good chance at least a couple of those proposals would have been acceptable to Zelenskyy. The specifics of those proposals probably give certain security assurances both sides are seeking, but I don't have a way to accurately peg the specific terms. What I do sense is that it doesn't matter. Ukraine is no longer in control of their destiny. Especially if their government was ready to settle with Russia and were told not to by NATO. Again, not debating the morality of any of these positions. Only the practicality.

To be clear, I fully recognize Russia is in the wrong here and Putin is a piece of shit. Bombing a country you were begging to "come back home" a little over a year ago is sociopathic beyond description. My heart goes out to the entire country of Ukraine. But if we're looking at this in the lexicon of history, Vladimir Putin is a choir boy compared to Stalin and we cut deals with Stalin. We even cut some bad deals with Stalin. But the point is, we negotiated those deals, because it wasn't practical to go to war with the USSR and it's not anymore practical today, the nuclear implications being what they are.

 

Fun watch.

 

Bakhmut has certainly turned out to be the focal battle of the war. And it’s going very, VERY badly for Ukraine.

 

But …. you said a few posts ago that the ICC, which we are not a member, was our puppet…

 

You have me a bit confused here. You stated that Ukraine must negotiate an end to the war now. I asked you what your framework for a negotiated peace would be, and your response seems to be that such a settlement is not possible because NATO poisoned the well.

The question is purely hypothetical. You and I are not Jimmy Carter or Teddy Roosevelt. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here. So in your opinion, what must Ukraine give, and what must Russia give?

I’ll start by giving you my framework, which is admittedly pro-Ukraine (the indisputably aggrieved party) and could only be realistic after Russia has suffered quite a bit more.

What Russia Gives
- Returns to its own borders (yes, that includes all of Ukraine)
- Renounces all territorial claims on all of Ukraine
- Publicly pledges to not use armed force or give lethal aid in any future territorial or human disputes regarding ethnic Russians living in Ukraine
- Publicly pledges not to ever again interfere in Ukrainian domestic politics or interfere with its abilities to join international organizations that are not related to military defense
- Resettles any ethnic Russian currently or formerly living in areas of Ukraine who refuse to swear loyalty to Ukraine
- Returns all Ukrainians, combatants and noncombatants, regardless of age or gender, captured in the course of the war.
What Ukraine Gives
- Publicly pledges not to join NATO
- Returns to donating country all serviceable weapons and munitions that are not primarily defensive in nature (IOW they can keep fighters, anti-tank missiles, small arms, tube artillery; they must return fighter-bombers, rocket artillery, tanks, APCs, IFVs, etc)
- General amnesty for all ethnic Russians living in Ukraine who supported the Russian invasion, provided they swear allegiance to Ukraine
- Fair reparations for ethnic Russians who refuse to swear loyalty and must be resettled in Russia
- Fair protections of civil liberties for ethnic Russians who have sworn loyalty to Ukraine, including rights to travel to and from Russia
- Fair agreements for Russian vessels to use Ukrainian ports and waterways
What Belarus Gives
- Pledges to never again allow the use of its territory as a staging ground for the invasion of one of its neighbors
- No permanent stationing of Russian forces in Belarus; they can do joint exercises and then return to Russia
Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine all give
- General amnesty for war crimes, real and imagined
- Restoration of normal diplomatic and economic relations
- No payment of war reparations by any side
- Demilitarized border areas: 20km deep on both sides; no bases or fortifications by either side; constabulary forces only
- Full exchange/accounting of all prisoners of war
NATO et al gives
- Pledges to not accept Ukraine as a member as long as above conditions hold
- Pledges to economically rebuild Ukraine
- Accounts for and retrieves all military material aid not primarily for defense
- Ends economic sanctions against Russia and Belarus
- Does not seek criminal or financial accountability for actions conducted by either side

Now those terms are both generous and harsh for Russia. If the war is about what Russia claims, then that meets all of their needs. If it’s really about a reborn Russian Empire, then of course they will be entirely unacceptable.

 

Yes, the ICC is in no way apolitical. It bends to the powerful.

 

I don’t think resetting borders to pre-2014 is practical. For one, Crimea has been historically Russian. The population there is 90% ethnic Russian. With the dissolution of the USSR, Crimea had a spat with Kyiv which led to Crimea becoming an autonomous region. Russia was allowed to dock its full fleet at Sevastopol since that time. It’s really hard to make a case that Russia has to give Crimea back to Ukraine to end this war.

It’s also difficult to see a scenario whereby a majority of the people in the far eastern Donbas regions would want to rejoin Ukraine.

I think a more realistic proposal is to return to the Minsk ceasefire borders. If we do that, then I think your other proposals are not bad at all and are pretty closely aligned with how I would handle it.

 

Actually that's not an unreasonable proposal assuming that Russia withdraws from any other portions of Ukraine that it currently occupies including southern Ukraine and the entire portions of Donetsk and Luhansk that were not under Russian control prior to the invasion of February 2022 (the majority of the territory of both oblasts prior to the Russian invasion of 2022). With the exception of the naval base at Sevastopol, Ukraine should also demand complete demilitarization of any Ukrainian territory that would be ceded to Russia. Finally, it would not be unreasonable for Ukraine to receive some form of reparations to rebuild the destruction to residential buildings and infrastructure resulting from the Russian and bombing, shelling and missile attacks.

 

The King of Saudi Arabia invites the President of Iran to Riyadh. Assad goes to Moscow and then to the UAE. Xi due in Moscow this coming week. All big FU’s to declining Empire.

 

I don’t know what to tell you about Crimea. I can have any child look at a map of Russia and Ukraine, ask them what country is this peninsula a part of, and get mostly the same answer. I recognize that it’s a sticking point for both sides and a lot more killing is going to have to happen for it to get less sticky for one side. I will point this out, though. Ukrainian military victory is not outside the realm of possibility. And if that happens and they have to fight to clear Crimea et al of Russian forces, then there will not be a population of 90% ethnic Russians, there will not be an opportunity for them to keep their property and possessions in exchange for an oath of loyalty, there will not be protection of their civil liberties, and there will not be an amnesty for those who aided and comforted a foreign army of conquest. So …