Ukraine Forever

[Werthead]

Just now, butterweedstrover said:

And it’s funny to think supporting maximalist war aims that will drag the conflict on for at least another year and potentially lead to the collapse of the Russian state is “peaceful” but whatever. 

The restoration of the borders that Ukraine held as recently as ten months ago, or even 2014, and were fully recognised by all countries including Russia itself, are not maximalist, but perfectly reasonable.

It should be noted that in the early going of the war, Ukraine was prepared to accept a deal effectively ceding Crimea and potentially the Donbas (after a political process) to Russia, but Russia was not prepared to compromise on that because it thought it could take the whole country or, if not that, at least the borders of their Novarussia project. If Russia turned around tomorrow and offered peace on those terms - effectively a return to February 2022 borders but with greater international recognition - many countries supporting Ukraine and I suspect not a few Ukrainians themselves would accept that with alacrity to end this conflict immediately. By imposing maximalist demands on Ukraine that no country could accept - even many Russia commentators have noted the annexation of territory Russia did not hold (and now holds less of) was cretinously stupid - Russia has opened the window of opportunity for Ukraine to reverse all of its gains since 2014.

[SeanF]

If a foreign power occupied Sussex, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight, I’d want my government to recover them, and wouldn’t be impressed with claims this was a “maximalist” war aim.

[Werthead]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If a foreign power occupied Sussex, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight, I’d want my government to recover them, and wouldn’t be impressed with claims this was a “maximalist” war aim.

More to the point, separatists did want to break away a chunk of the United Kingdom where the majority of the population did not want to break away (despite some legitimate points for debate about how the borders of that chunk were decided) for some decades, and were resisted.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

The Baltic states did not want to be a part of Nazi Germany. I don’t understand why you keep making these bizarre comparisons.

Did the Baltic States want to be part of the Soviet Union?  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Sussex I can kinda see why, but the Isle of Wight?

[Padraig]

15 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Oh, you mean the right sectors gunning down their own protesters? This is something western organizations that were pro-Maidan already reported on: 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/unsolved-maidan-massacre-casts-shadow-over-ukraine/ 

This article isn't saying what you apparently think it does.

8 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

And it’s funny to think supporting maximalist war aims that will drag the conflict on for at least another year and potentially lead to the collapse of the Russian state is “peaceful” but whatever. 

Nobody should seriously want Russia to collapse (but should want their war in Ukraine to collapse).  Your anger seems to have been ignited by a poster's disbelief at another Russian civilian "committing suicide".  And rather vague suggestions about other posts, which I'm not sure actually exist.

There is an interesting discussion out there about how Putin has set up his regime so that he stands for Russia.  If he (and his regime) doesn't survive, the perception is Russia doesn't survive.  Putin certainly hasn't done Russia any favours with that dangerous strategy.

There is also an interesting discussion about what peace looks like in Ukraine but going on about "revenge porn" isn't an appropriate way to start that.

[butterweedstrover]

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The restoration of the borders that Ukraine held as recently as ten months ago, or even 2014, and were fully recognised by all countries including Russia itself, are not maximalist, but perfectly reasonable.

It should be noted that in the early going of the war, Ukraine was prepared to accept a deal effectively ceding Crimea and potentially the Donbas (after a political process) to Russia, but Russia was not prepared to compromise on that because it thought it could take the whole country or, if not that, at least the borders of their Novarussia project. If Russia turned around tomorrow and offered peace on those terms - effectively a return to February 2022 borders but with greater international recognition - many countries supporting Ukraine and I suspect not a few Ukrainians themselves would accept that with alacrity to end this conflict immediately. By imposing maximalist demands on Ukraine that no country could accept - even many Russia commentators have noted the annexation of territory Russia did not hold (and now holds less of) was cretinously stupid - Russia has opened the window of opportunity for Ukraine to reverse all of its gains since 2014.

All that was true while the Minsk agreement was still on the table. Russia recognized Donbas under the conditions of the Minsk Agreement but that is dead and gone. Even Merkel admitted the agreement was a ruse to buy time and arm Ukraine.

If we want to think like that geopolitically it would have been better in invade in 2014 or not at all. 

But we are we’re we are at right now. Russia went to annexing territory as consolation prize for failing to overthrow the government. Ukraine’s military goal of now push into Donetsk is not the same as that under the framework of Minsk. 

Support the military goal all you, but completely occupation by the UAF of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Sevastopol are maximalist demands.
 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Padraig said:

There is also an interesting discussion about what peace looks like in Ukraine but going on about "revenge porn" isn't an appropriate way to start that.

I’m still baffled how Ukraine liberating territory Russia overran is “revenge”.  If so… I’d think @butterweedstrover would object to any war where an invaded Nation fights to regain territory lost to an invading nation…

[butterweedstrover]

11 minutes ago, Padraig said:

This article isn't saying what you apparently think it does. 
 

Actually it does within the confines of a pro-Ukrainian source.
 

 The NYT itself did an investigation on where the snipers were located which is why the government is covering it up: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html 
 

The point is people just casually spread misinformation like “Yankovich killed the protesters” and you don’t take issue with it. 

11 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Nobody should seriously want Russia to collapse (but should want their war in Ukraine to collapse).  Your anger seems to have been ignited by a poster's disbelief at another Russian civilian "committing suicide".  And rather vague suggestions about other posts, which I'm not sure actually exist.

There is an interesting discussion out there about how Putin has set up his regime so that he stands for Russia.  If he (and his regime) doesn't survive, the perception is Russia doesn't survive.  Putin certainly hasn't done Russia any favours with that dangerous strategy.

There is also an interesting discussion about what peace looks like in Ukraine but going on about "revenge porn" isn't an appropriate way to start that.

People seem to associate the collapse of the Russian state with the end of the war. They think the more Russians suffer in open revolt the better it is for Ukraine. But they are just using the situation of Ukrainians to justify the misery of the Russian people. In a war they have no skin in, so allow me to be skeptical of the true motives.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

completely occupation by the UAF of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Sevastopol are maximalist demands.

Clearly, you do not know what "maximalist" means.  Or "occupation," for that matter.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Support the military goal all you, but completely occupation by the UAF of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Sevastopol are maximalist demands.
 

At this point not really, they’re entirely within of reasonable possibility and it’d  advantageous for the us to assist in their efforts to reclaim their land and save their people from Russian barbarism.

[butterweedstrover]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m still baffled how Ukraine liberating territory Russia overran is “revenge”.  If so… I’d think @butterweedstrover would object to any war where an invaded Nation fights to regain territory lost to an invading nation…

But that’s not what the discussion is. Per usual Scot you ascribe arguments used for different purpose to continually demonize one side vs. the other.
 

It’s the western desire to see Russian suffer that constitutes revenge considering karma of whatever. And throughout this entire thread thinking like that has been normalized.

[butterweedstrover]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

At this point not really, they’re entirely within of reasonable possibility and it’d  advantageous for the us to assist in their efforts to reclaim their land and save their people from Russian barbarism.

I agree it’s within the realm of possibility. I also agree it is advantageous for Western powers. 

But I don’t agree it is conducive of peace when it will only bring more strife to those territories and possibly bring about the collapse of the Russian state leading to more violence. 

The problem is you care more about victory and wave off the inevitable consequences as karma due to the general desire for revenge and violence.

[mormont]

If you're saying that the survival of the Russian state justifies the seizure of land from another country by force, that's not a great argument.

[DMC]

Let's be clear:  It's Ukraine and the Zelenskyy regime that is insisting on the return of their territories and it's Ukraine and Zelenskyy himself that is asking "the west" to continue to support that effort.  If Ukraine did not want to continue fighting for those territories that's their decision.  But ascribing their aims to nefarious "western motives" is just petulant whining.  And imagining the "collapse of the Russian state" if Russia gave back territories is just pathetically stupid and/or ill-informed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

It’s the western desire to see Russian suffer that constitutes revenge considering karma of whatever. And throughout this entire thread thinking like that has been normalized.

Hardly.  We support the Ukrainian people and Government’s stated goals.  That’s not “revenge porn”.

[Jace, Extat]

Xi played Putin like a dall [I want some stank on "doll", hence the spelling]

The real question is what Putin has to give up to Xi to get the war stopped. Russia will never be able to afford peace with Europe without becoming a satellite of China. All this bellyaching aside, Ukraine is DUH winnning and is going to keep winning for as long as America doesn't disintegrate. This is the kind of war the U.S. has wanted to fight since we teabagged Tojo. Saddam and his 4th largest army in the world was like having a motherfucker say "I'mma go down baby" and then he just kinda blows on that shit then sticks it in. 

Just totally abrupt and not what you sold me on, y'know. Like, really disappointing TBH. 

Taliban?? IS-IS/IL? Those dudes drive fucking Ford Broncos! This Javelin Missile cost half-a-fucking-million doll hairs. It costs more to kill these motherfuckers than it does to let them kill! (Also known as the School Shooter dillema, kids learn the damndest things: so desensitized by movies, television, and the internet... to say nothing of what's on the news! [This is a Jim Carrey's The Grinch bit]))

Anyway, I only started typing to agree with 

42 minutes ago, Padraig said:

 

Nobody should seriously want Russia to collapse (but should want their war in Ukraine to collapse). 

...

The U.S.S.R. making like a Kesha and going Tiiiimber was quite enough scattering of atomics to the winds of opportunity for a few hundred years. If a few places get their independence from that bass ackwards despotate then all the better, but I would expect the U.S. government to assist the Russian state in surviving Putin's follies and would vote against any politician who did not. 

We learned this in 1919. You do not erase a structure without knowing what replaces it, and without commiting to that replacement in a spirit of goodwill and genuine humanitarianism. Anything else is revenge porn, and that is not what drives moral actions. Have you seen West Asia lately?

Though that's absolutely the furthest I'll agree with certain non-quoted characters. Even the corrupted can cling to a good point, even if the outcome they reach with it is just wrong.

[butterweedstrover]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Hardly.  We support the Ukrainian people and Government’s stated goals.  That’s not “revenge porn”.

If there stated goals lead to more death and suffering, all you’re doing is supporting death and suffering but without the revenge excuse. 

Ukrainians have their reasons but you don’t. Wanting to make the enemy suffer and using the military goals of the UAF as an excuse is just that and it doesn’t make you righteous, it makes you exploitive and pro-violence.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, butterweedstrover said:

If there stated goals lead to more death and suffering,

Luckily they’re unlikely to do that.

[butterweedstrover]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Luckily they’re unlikely to do that.

That’s a fine opinion (based on wishful thinking) but since people tend to believe anything less equates to support for Russian atrocities, I tend to be skeptical that you really care about the consequences and are more focused on destroying the enemy rather than achieving peace.