The Ukraine war thread
-
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
What does it mean? It means are you ready to eliminate him? If not, then you have to find some sort of workable deal.
So which is it?
The Brad
-
Some practical realities from VDH, as he sees them
Link to video -
Some practical realities from VDH, as he sees them
Link to videoI found VDH’s presentation balanced, clear and thoughtful. I am not though at all convinced Putin would consider relinquishing so much as a metre of occupied territory or let alone agree to a any DMZ without including the full territory the annexed of the Donbas, Kherson and Zaporizhie oblasts (provinces). Probably more - but that remains to be seen. There is also the question of leaving Ukraine alone once an armistice or peace deal is signed. it’s not just force of arms Putin will use to subjugate and control Ukraine. Never forget that he is a highly trained KGB hood and uses multiple methods and means to obtain his intended objectives. VDH seems to think the presence of US/EU concessions and technical assistance will act as a credible deterrent. I hope he’s right but I believe he Is being naive about Putin and the Kremlin overall on the subject. Putin has little to no respect for such foreign commercial ventures inside Russia, to think he would respect (in the western sense of respect that implies honour) any ventures in a country he does not even believe has a right to exist, is pure folly.
Nevertheless I do fully concur with VDH that the commercial concession should proceed if for no reason other than to see how things play out in an actual armistice or peace negotiation with Putin.
-
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
Yup totally. And Zelenskyy asked Vance his thoughts on Putin’s repeated violations of previous diplomacy and cease fires to which Vance threw a tantrum about not saying thank you. Vance should’ve said something simple about how this time it’ll be different because we have a leader that will enforce security agreements. Even Trump during the meeting said he’s the toughest person in the world but that he doesn’t want for it to come to that.
What part of "already agreed upon " don't you understand? Zelensky was supposed to come to the Whitehouse, do a photo-op with a few questions, handle things a bit diplomatically and then he could bring up any concerns in a private luncheon.
Instead, he shows up to the Whitehouse looking like he's going to a Romanian Rave and runs his mouth where he didn't need to go. J.D. jumped on him (maybe because J.D. is a Marine and already a little pissed at the guy) and Trump weighed in like grandpa telling one of the neighbor's kids how the calf ate the cabbage. Then, Trump basically told him to get his butt outta there. No deal, no meal. Buy your own damn lunch.
Maybe you've worked remote for so long, you've forgotten how business works or you simply hate Trump so much you're biased. When you are the weak side of the deal, you get the best deal you can. You don't do anything to screw up your side of the table. Zelensky screwed the pooch.
And for all you folks with your bullshit analysis, let's boil this down to simple facts: Either a deal is cut with Trump's help or the Europeans have to step in and rescue Ukraine. The first is possible and the second ain't happening. Those are your choices, if you wish Ukraine to survive as an independent nation.
So get your big girl panties on, quit sniping from the peanut gallery and decide what the fuck you want. Binary choice.
Pick one.
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
And for all you folks with your bullshit analysis, let's boil this down to simple facts: Either a deal is cut with Trump's help or the Europeans have to step in and rescue Ukraine. The first is possible and the second ain't happening. Those are your choices, if you wish Ukraine to survive as an independent nation.
So get your big girl panties on, quit sniping from the peanut gallery and decide what the fuck you want. Binary choice.
Pick one.
Again, an absolute plethora of worthless a analysis, mostly based on "why I don't like Trump".
See the quote above. THIS is where you're at. THIS is where Zelensky is at.
Binary choice.
“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
-
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
What does it mean? It means are you ready to eliminate him? If not, then you have to find some sort of workable deal.
So which is it?
@LuFins-Dad said in The Ukraine war thread:
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
What does it mean? It means are you ready to eliminate him? If not, then you have to find some sort of workable deal.
So which is it?
It means you don’t negotiate with him, perhaps. We and the rest of the international community sanction and pressure the living crap out of Russia until they stop their murderous invasion.
-
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
And for all you folks with your bullshit analysis, let's boil this down to simple facts: Either a deal is cut with Trump's help or the Europeans have to step in and rescue Ukraine. The first is possible and the second ain't happening. Those are your choices, if you wish Ukraine to survive as an independent nation.
So get your big girl panties on, quit sniping from the peanut gallery and decide what the fuck you want. Binary choice.
Pick one.
Again, an absolute plethora of worthless a analysis, mostly based on "why I don't like Trump".
See the quote above. THIS is where you're at. THIS is where Zelensky is at.
Binary choice.
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
And for all you folks with your bullshit analysis, let's boil this down to simple facts: Either a deal is cut with Trump's help or the Europeans have to step in and rescue Ukraine. The first is possible and the second ain't happening. Those are your choices, if you wish Ukraine to survive as an independent nation.
So get your big girl panties on, quit sniping from the peanut gallery and decide what the fuck you want. Binary choice.
Pick one.
Again, an absolute plethora of worthless a analysis, mostly based on "why I don't like Trump".
See the quote above. THIS is where you're at. THIS is where Zelensky is at.
Binary choice.
Everyone is fine with a deal. It’s what’s IN the deal that is the point.
-
But ya know, this is how countries get more land. It’s mostly a 19th century model (heck we did it too), but perhaps that’s back where the world is now. Might is right.
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
But ya know, this is how countries get more land. It’s mostly a 19th century model (heck we did it too), but perhaps that’s back where the world is now. Might is right.
Budapest Memorandum.
Clinton gave Ukraine a fucking. Obama did them again in 2014, with the Crimean Invasion.
Now, ask yourself...If there was a possibility of a Moscow Mushroom Cloud, would Russia have invaded Ukraine?
Welcome to the bigs.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Ukraine war thread:
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
What does it mean? It means are you ready to eliminate him? If not, then you have to find some sort of workable deal.
So which is it?
It means you don’t negotiate with him, perhaps. We and the rest of the international community sanction and pressure the living crap out of Russia until they stop their murderous invasion.
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Ukraine war thread:
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
What does it mean? It means are you ready to eliminate him? If not, then you have to find some sort of workable deal.
So which is it?
It means you don’t negotiate with him, perhaps. We and the rest of the international community sanction and pressure the living crap out of Russia until they stop their murderous invasion.
No I think even this late in the game Putin should be sat down at the table and forced to lay out his cards. He talks big that’s for certain but he also knows full well just how weak he really is. Moreover he knows that NATO has never been nor ever can be a threat to the Russian Federation even it were to include Ukraine and for that matter, Georgia. It is a defensive collective security alliance nothing more.
Putin’s has a pathological paranoia of being held personally held to account. A pathological terror of ordinary people actually governing themselves and holding their freely elected politicians accountable. Putin fears that in Ukraine because he knows it could probably spread into his coveted and completely mythological Russia. That is what he fears most in his perverse and thoroughly corrupted KGB brain.
It is not the binary choice as someone here is trying to gaslight. Stay the course 89.
-
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Ukraine war thread:
@89th said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
SecState's take:
Link to videoInteresting interview. The lady is asking what everyone is thinking, including Zelenskyy. “Marco Rubio, even you’ve said Putin is a butcher and absolutely can’t be trusted in negotiations” and his response keeps coming back to “yeah but Trump is a deal maker”, what does that meeaannnnnn?? That’s the whole point.
What does it mean? It means are you ready to eliminate him? If not, then you have to find some sort of workable deal.
So which is it?
It means you don’t negotiate with him, perhaps. We and the rest of the international community sanction and pressure the living crap out of Russia until they stop their murderous invasion.
No I think even this late in the game Putin should be sat down at the table and forced to lay out his cards. He talks big that’s for certain but he also knows full well just how weak he really is. Moreover he knows that NATO has never been nor ever can be a threat to the Russian Federation even it were to include Ukraine and for that matter, Georgia. It is a defensive collective security alliance nothing more.
Putin’s has a pathological paranoia of being held personally held to account. A pathological terror of ordinary people actually governing themselves and holding their freely elected politicians accountable. Putin fears that in Ukraine because he knows it could probably spread into his coveted and completely mythological Russia. That is what he fears most in his perverse and thoroughly corrupted KGB brain.
It is not the binary choice as someone here is trying to gaslight. Stay the course 89.
@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
Putin’s is a pathological paranoia being held personally held to account. A pathological terror of ordinary people actually governing themselves and holding their freely elected politicians accountable. Putin fears that in Ukraine because he knows it could probably spread into his coveted and completely mythological Russia. That is what he fears most in his perverse and thoroughly corrupted KGB brain.
Yeah you know better than me but that’s why I mentioned the 2011 protests…and 1991… Putin is longing for a Soviet life, perhaps this will be over once he’s gone but I’m not sure how long that’ll be.
-
@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
Putin’s is a pathological paranoia being held personally held to account. A pathological terror of ordinary people actually governing themselves and holding their freely elected politicians accountable. Putin fears that in Ukraine because he knows it could probably spread into his coveted and completely mythological Russia. That is what he fears most in his perverse and thoroughly corrupted KGB brain.
Yeah you know better than me but that’s why I mentioned the 2011 protests…and 1991… Putin is longing for a Soviet life, perhaps this will be over once he’s gone but I’m not sure how long that’ll be.
-
See? More unhelpful partisanship.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
A way forward?
So. Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s. The failure runs through 4 US administrations and several UK governments. What were the obligations and how can live up to them now? Or should we?
Also up for discussion, is the US and West looking at the Ukraine/Russia war as two separate events, while Ukraine and Russia treat it as one, with a cease fire in the middle? And does that different viewpoint cause confusion to both sides?
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
A way forward?
So. Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s. The failure runs through 4 US administrations and several UK governments. What were the obligations and how can live up to them now? Or should we?
Also up for discussion, is the US and West looking at the Ukraine/Russia war as two separate events, while Ukraine and Russia treat it as one, with a cease fire in the middle? And does that different viewpoint cause confusion to both sides?
Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s.
Let’s not bother, because there really were none.
The Budapest Memorandum merely stated that the US, UK and Russian Federation recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine and the integrity of its 1991 borders. The signatories furthermore gave Ukraine security assurances to Ukraine that in exchange for Ukraine handing over its Soviet era nuclear weapons arsenal it would receive technical aid and assistance from the US and UK to build a democratic polity based on a free market economy. The signatories furthermore pledged to provide all necessary technology and assistance for the remediation of the Chernobyl nuclear site.
The key here is the term security assurances
In the arcane world of diplospeak, security assurances are not at all security guarantees pledging the signatories to come to Ukraine’s aid in the event of attack by a third party. Likewise they do not represent in any way a mutual non aggression pact. Security assurances under the terms of Budapest Memorandum are merely non binding acceptance that the three remaining nuclear powers, the US, UK and Russia will continue to recognise Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the absence of the country maintaining its own nuclear deterrent capability. More importantly though, the assurances were also given in return for Ukraine’s signature to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a nonnuclear state. If you like, a bargaining chip to bring Ukraine on side - since Ukraine would retain its own technical capacity and know-how to produce its own nuclear weapons well into the future.
At best the Memorandum suggested but did not promise, that the nuclear weapons Ukraine’s turns over to Russia will not be used against Ukraine (ha,ha, ha). In reality however it only meant that the signatories would give consideration to supplying Ukraine with the necessary conventional weapons it would need to maintain a defensive armed force from any third party aggressor.
At the time this agreement was reached, Ukraine desperately wanted the Chernobyl site cleaned up as well a massive input of western credits and loans along with technical assistance from the West. Russia too wanted similar Western aid but it also wanted to be the sole nuclear power in the region. The US and the UK wanted Ukraine to become a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty as a non nuclear state. There was an optimism in West arising from the ill conceived belief of a peace dividend for Europe and the West that would result in liberal democracy throughout all former communist states. After all, that’s what free enterprise and open societies enevitably produce. It was therefore inconceivable at the time that autocratic Russian chauvinism and revanchist imperial aspirations would ever appear again. Life was at last a bed of roses.
NB:
Written on iPhone with a fat finger
in one shot. Will not bother to proof read for corrections. -
Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s.
Let’s not bother, because there really were none.
The Budapest Memorandum merely stated that the US, UK and Russian Federation recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine and the integrity of its 1991 borders. The signatories furthermore gave Ukraine security assurances to Ukraine that in exchange for Ukraine handing over its Soviet era nuclear weapons arsenal it would receive technical aid and assistance from the US and UK to build a democratic polity based on a free market economy. The signatories furthermore pledged to provide all necessary technology and assistance for the remediation of the Chernobyl nuclear site.
The key here is the term security assurances
In the arcane world of diplospeak, security assurances are not at all security guarantees pledging the signatories to come to Ukraine’s aid in the event of attack by a third party. Likewise they do not represent in any way a mutual non aggression pact. Security assurances under the terms of Budapest Memorandum are merely non binding acceptance that the three remaining nuclear powers, the US, UK and Russia will continue to recognise Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the absence of the country maintaining its own nuclear deterrent capability. More importantly though, the assurances were also given in return for Ukraine’s signature to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a nonnuclear state. If you like, a bargaining chip to bring Ukraine on side - since Ukraine would retain its own technical capacity and know-how to produce its own nuclear weapons well into the future.
At best the Memorandum suggested but did not promise, that the nuclear weapons Ukraine’s turns over to Russia will not be used against Ukraine (ha,ha, ha). In reality however it only meant that the signatories would give consideration to supplying Ukraine with the necessary conventional weapons it would need to maintain a defensive armed force from any third party aggressor.
At the time this agreement was reached, Ukraine desperately wanted the Chernobyl site cleaned up as well a massive input of western credits and loans along with technical assistance from the West. Russia too wanted similar Western aid but it also wanted to be the sole nuclear power in the region. The US and the UK wanted Ukraine to become a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty as a non nuclear state. There was an optimism in West arising from the ill conceived belief of a peace dividend for Europe and the West that would result in liberal democracy throughout all former communist states. After all, that’s what free enterprise and open societies enevitably produce. It was therefore inconceivable at the time that autocratic Russian chauvinism and revanchist imperial aspirations would ever appear again. Life was at last a bed of roses.
NB:
Written on iPhone with a fat finger
in one shot. Will not bother to proof read for corrections.@Renauda TY, that does make me feel a little less horrible… It also paints the earlier Rubio speech from 2014 as hawkish hyperbole mostly delivered as political fodder going into midterm elections…
-
Let’s discuss the US’ and UK’s failure to live up to the security agreements made to Ukraine in the 90’s. The failure runs through 4 US administrations and several UK governments. What were the obligations and how can live up to them now? Or should we?
We didn't live up them and we aren't going to live up to them. But we did place one piece of international Truth in the forevermore... NO sovereign nation will ever give up all of its nuclear weapons again. Not ever. Never.
