The Ukraine war thread
-
Hegseth begins laying out US position to bring about an armistice:
-
"But we must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
"Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering."
That is what I hear from everybody who seems serious on the subject.
Education is extremely important.
-
You are correct. The past year and a half or so of attrition has erased any illusions of a return to 2014 borders. Likewise NATO membership in the foreseeable future.
The challenge in the armistice negotiations will be limiting Putin to what he already has occupied militarily and not a yard more. Likewise, the question of what Russia will demand as reparations from Ukraine and the West.
Then the security guarantees for Ukraine. There can be no illusions on the part of the US that Russia will negotiate or agree to anything in good faith.
-
Depends on what happens upon Putin's demise. I see no indication things are likely to get much better.
-
"But we must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
"Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering."
That is what I hear from everybody who seems serious on the subject.
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
"But we must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
"Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering."
That is what I hear from everybody who seems serious on the subject.
Smarter negotiators wouldn’t preemptively take options off the table before negotiations even start, such as this or NATO membership. He basically announced that negotiations will be over how much territory does Ukraine concede. For now.
-
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
"But we must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
"Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering."
That is what I hear from everybody who seems serious on the subject.
Smarter negotiators wouldn’t preemptively take options off the table before negotiations even start, such as this or NATO membership. He basically announced that negotiations will be over how much territory does Ukraine concede. For now.
-
NATO membership, or its future possibility, would be a realistic leverage point.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
NATO membership sometime down the road must remain a possible option for Ukraine. Part of the security guarantee package for Ukraine ought to be ongoing assistance to Ukraine so that it may bring its armed forces into compliance with NATO standards. This process has already begun and the US must not let Russia put restrictions upon Ukraine in achieving this objective. The Kremlin will do everything possible in the coming negotiations to render Ukraine effectively defenceless and wholly subordinate to Moscow.
The Kremlin will demand much and offer little or nothing in return.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
NATO membership, or its future possibility, would be a realistic leverage point.
Yep, would leverage us right into a full European war.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
NATO membership, or its future possibility, would be a realistic leverage point.
Yep, would leverage us right into a full European war.
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
NATO membership, or its future possibility, would be a realistic leverage point.
Yep, would leverage us right into a full European war.
Indeed, Putin would have you think that.
Putin also knows that as it stands, NATO is Russia’s best guarantee that its western borderlands are not only secure but safe from attack. It must have come as a relief to Putin when Finland joined NATO as it enabled him immediately to begin a withdrawal of a large contingent of ground forces stationed along the Karelian frontier.
But you probably either missed that fact altogether or chose not to take it into consideration as it does not fit your narrative. I suspect the latter.
-
Putin Won’t Settle for Less than a Betrayal of Ukraine
But there would have to be an agreement on ending the war in Ukraine, or else the summit would fail. What would such an agreement look like? Putin’s demands are clear, and they would require significant concessions from the United States — concessions that, if granted, would leave Ukraine adrift and at Russia’s mercy.
The first item on Putin’s wish list would be the recognition (including by Ukraine) of Russia’s territorial gains. He would insist on keeping all the territories Russia currently occupies, as well as those he has formally annexed but not yet fully controls. This is a prospect Zelensky has repeatedly rejected. It goes without saying that Ukraine would be asked to withdraw from Kursk, which it invaded, to dubious benefit, some months ago.
Equally important would be Ukraine’s formal, permanent neutrality. This was a major sticking point during the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022. At the time, Ukraine sought real security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression. Russia, however, insisted on a mechanism that would allow it to be consulted — and potentially veto — any Ukrainian request for external assistance.
Putin would likely agree only to meaningless guarantees — ones that could not be effectively invoked if Russia were to launch another attack. As in Istanbul, he would want to leave Russia and its potential partners (like China and Belarus) in a position to veto any Ukrainian request for external assistance. For that reason, it is very doubtful that Putin would ever agree to a European peacekeeping contingent to enforce the agreement.
Would Trump agree to such a framework? If he did, it would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and would leave the country defenseless against future aggression.
Elbows up!
-
Putin Won’t Settle for Less than a Betrayal of Ukraine
But there would have to be an agreement on ending the war in Ukraine, or else the summit would fail. What would such an agreement look like? Putin’s demands are clear, and they would require significant concessions from the United States — concessions that, if granted, would leave Ukraine adrift and at Russia’s mercy.
The first item on Putin’s wish list would be the recognition (including by Ukraine) of Russia’s territorial gains. He would insist on keeping all the territories Russia currently occupies, as well as those he has formally annexed but not yet fully controls. This is a prospect Zelensky has repeatedly rejected. It goes without saying that Ukraine would be asked to withdraw from Kursk, which it invaded, to dubious benefit, some months ago.
Equally important would be Ukraine’s formal, permanent neutrality. This was a major sticking point during the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022. At the time, Ukraine sought real security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression. Russia, however, insisted on a mechanism that would allow it to be consulted — and potentially veto — any Ukrainian request for external assistance.
Putin would likely agree only to meaningless guarantees — ones that could not be effectively invoked if Russia were to launch another attack. As in Istanbul, he would want to leave Russia and its potential partners (like China and Belarus) in a position to veto any Ukrainian request for external assistance. For that reason, it is very doubtful that Putin would ever agree to a European peacekeeping contingent to enforce the agreement.
Would Trump agree to such a framework? If he did, it would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and would leave the country defenseless against future aggression.
