Ukraine: Slava Ukraini!!!

[Gorn]

Regular reminder about the treaties that Putin's Russia has violated within the recent decade that I like to trot out every time the subject of negotiations comes up:

- 4 out of 5 points of Budapest memo (they haven't nuked Ukraine yet, that's the 5th)

- Minsk 1 Agreement

- Minsk 2 Agreement

- Helsinki Accords

- Belovezh Accords

- Black Sea Fleet Partition Treaty

- Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty

- Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter

Besides, by annexing four regions of Ukraine (only one of which they fully control) they've backed themselves into a corner and made any reasonable compromise impossible.

Edited March 28 by Gorn

[Padraig]

50 minutes ago, Toth said:

And I see @Padraigs point that the US is seeing China as a rival... yes... but that's the US... And even then, rival shouldn't mean enemy. It's all about what China intends to do with its soft power. Wanting prosperity through cooperation is a good thing, but we don't need another bully on the block who thinks in 19th century influence spheres. We should have grown beyond that.

It should be noted that this goes both ways.  China and the US don't need to be enemies but when you are rivals militarily, economically and politically, then it is unsurprising that both sides fall into the trap of viewing the other as the "enemy".  That label may not be used all the time but it is implicit in some of the rhetoric coming from the US.

China believes the US is the bully, that is trying to entice Taiwan away from China, just out of spite.   I'm not saying that is correct but if you can't even appreciate where China is coming from, then you are going to get no where engaging with Lily Liyang.

Equating the US with the West is understandable also.  The war in Ukraine has unfortunately just reinforced all that.

And finally.  You responded to Lily Liyang using the term "enemy" but she responded to a rather insulting post from somebody else.  The word "enemy" didn't come from no where in this conversation.

26 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Or which ones they want back - given that eventual Ukraine victory is pretty much assured, given enough time.

I still worry about that.  The US election in 2024 could change the dynamic.  I don't think the war can be won before then given Russia's psyche (although it is possible).  And China could start supporting Russia more explicitly (which was talked about very recently).  Maybe Ukraine could still win but dragging this war out for years and years clearly means there is no winner.  Who knows what type of Ukraine would be left.

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Regular reminder about the treaties that Putin's Russia has violated within the recent decade that I like to trot out every time the subject of negotiations comes up:

*sigh*

You don't negotiate with an "enemy" because you trust or respect them, you negotiate with your enemies to prevent perpetual conflicts. You're not doing them a favor, you're putting your own value-system (presumably not one based on war) into practice - while also giving your people the option not to live in fear.
As long as you don't give up anything that shouldn't be given up, there is no reason not to negotiate, ever.

[Kalnestk Oblast]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

*sigh*

You don't negotiate with an "enemy" because you trust or respect them, you negotiate with your enemies to prevent perpetual conflicts. You're not doing them a favor, you're putting your own value-system (presumably not one based on war) into practice - while also giving your people the option not to live in fear.
As long as you don't give up anything that shouldn't be given up, there is no reason not to negotiate, ever.

That's not remotely accurate. For starters, negotiating with people who will then declare war a few months again does not give your people the option to not live in fear - quite the opposite. 

And that 'give up anything that shouldn't be given up' is doing some real load bearing. Are thousands of kids being forcefully adopted by Russians something they shouldn't give up? How about the 10,000 square kilometers of territory that is now mined and cannot be safely inhabited - is that something that shouldn't be given up? How about the mass executions of civilians in currently occupied territory that will almost certainly continue while Russia occupies it - are those things that shouldn't be given up?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

*sigh*

You don't negotiate with an "enemy" because you trust or respect them, you negotiate with your enemies to prevent perpetual conflicts. You're not doing them a favor, you're putting your own value-system (presumably not one based on war) into practice - while also giving your people the option not to live in fear.
As long as you don't give up anything that shouldn't be given up, there is no reason not to negotiate, ever.

What good is accomplished from negotiation if you can be certain the person you are negotiating with will breach any agreement in short order?

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Lily Liyang said:

You know my stance on Uyghur. It is a lie to me and apparently it is not a lie to you.

The conversation has moved on, but I want to make this much clear:

The organised persecution of the Uyghur people by the government of China is certainly not a lie. It is an established fact.

I'm sorry if there are users here who prefer to deny it. But people deny the Holocaust, people denied the genocide in Rwanda even while it was happening, and people in Russia are denying that their government has massacred innocents and kidnapped children. 

We try our best to allow users latitude on this board, but denying that a genocide has happened or is happening is an extreme where that latitude is severely limited. Think what you like. Say it elsewhere if you like. But understand that here, it's not going to be treated as just another political discussion.

48 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The "self-defense" line was valid a year ago. Now it's a war over Eastern Ukraine.

This makes zero sense. If it's a war over Eastern Ukraine, by definition it's a war of self-defence. This is like saying that the dude who's trying to strangle me only got one hand around my neck, so now it's not a matter of self-defence any more, it's an argument over where his hand should be.

Do you believe that at this point the Russians no longer have the conquest of all Ukraine as an objective? Even if it doesn't seem realistically achievable at this point in time? Because that's the point. If Ukraine allow Russia to keep any part of Ukraine, the Russians will always be looking to take more. That's been their objective for decades. That was their objective in 2014. And that's their objective now. Ukraine cannot allow Russia to take them over piecemeal.

[Werthead]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What good is accomplished from negotiation if you can be certain the person you are negotiating with will breach any agreement in short order?

If you know that, there may be arguments for it. For example, if Ukraine believed it could benefit from a ceasefire more than Russia would, it might agree to a ceasefire it 100% believes Russia plans to violate because it thinks it can benefit from it more.

For negotiations to have value there has to be some trust, which is incredibly hard to engender with Russia in the current moment. Where we have seen negotiations be hugely successful, it's because you had people on both sides who were willing to compromise, the trick was them usually convincing the other of that. It's the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement coming up, and that was a hell of a tough sell on both the Unionist and Republican sides, because they did not believe the other side was being sincere.

One issue is that with these long-standing disputes, it often requires the people most invested in them having died and people growing up in the paradigm saying, "this is horseshit, let's sort it out," which you are much less likely to do when you've invested your name and legacy in the situation. Lenin and Stalin could have never overseen the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but someone who grew up in the system and realising it needed to be reformed (or burned down) could, and did.

That means that Putin is not the right person to negotiate an end to the conflict since he started it and he has invested his political capital in it to an overwhelming degree, and any reasonable peace even vaguely acceptable to Ukraine would require a massive backslide from Putin which does not seem compatible with his character. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that Putin will not keep going for at least several more years.

Edited March 28 by Werthead

[Gorn]

To follow up on Mormont's example, saying that "it's just about eastern Ukraine now" is the equivalent of a killer giving up on murdering its victim and now trying "just" to cut its right arm off.

And well-meaning observers from the side now say "well at least he's not killing them now", and "they can still live with one arm", and "is one arm really worth fighting for", and "surely the killer won't try to chop the other one off later", and "maybe we can get them to promise not to chop off any more parts", and "if we toss the victim a knife, are we the real bad guys here?".

Edited March 28 by Gorn

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Lily Liyang said:

Stop patronizing. Established fact? Estimated lies, I say. I don’t know who’s more pathetic. Take good care of your arrogance. I say this attitude drove countries into war.

@mormont wow.  You really don’t know Mormont… do you?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Secretary of Eumenes

new thread for discussion of China:

 

[Chad Vader]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Russians would be absolutely insane to lanch at the Japanese.  It would give the Japanese all the excuse they need to retake the Kurils. And the Russians don’t have the bandwidth for a fight with Japan.

Everything you said is true. My counter is Putin. Are you at all confident that Vlad would just lay down his sword after Ukraine?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I’m listening to “All Things Considered” and they’re doing a story about foreign volunteers training Ukranian conscripts.  They’re saying they’re only giving 17 days of training?

I thought the Ukrainians were doing full boot camps.  What does this say about Ukrainian infantry strength and training?

@Werthead

Edited March 28 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Chad Vader said:

Everything you said is true. My counter is Putin. Are you at all confident that Vlad would just lay down his sword after Ukraine?

What could he do… attempt an amphibious invasion of Hokkaido?  

[Chad Vader]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What could he do… attempt an amphibious invasion of Hokkaido?  

That, or there's also submarines who can unleash any type of weapon.

[Maithanet]

19 minutes ago, Chad Vader said:

That, or there's also submarines who can unleash any type of weapon.

?? You think that Putin is looking to start a missile or nuclear war with Japan (and by extension, the US)?  I mean, Putin has done some very stupid things in the past 18 months, but that is well beyond anything we've seen thus far.  I would consider an invasion of the Baltic states to be significantly more likely (and that is not at all likely either). 

[ThinkerX]

If the accounts of 99% of available Russian military forces being deployed to Ukraine are correct - stripping ALL other forces and bases across the board to skeleton levels - are correct, the Russia no longer has the military capability for ANY other operation.

I am referring here to accounts of sailors being pulled off ships, members of their strategic rocket forces getting captured in Ukraine, and a British (?) study released last month(?) going into this. Combined with a huge pile spent munitions and equipment that is now good only for scrap...no. 

[Rippounet]

36 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What good is accomplished from negotiation if you can be certain the person you are negotiating with will breach any agreement in short order?

Defining the objectives you seek to accomplish through war, to ensure that war does not become an objective in itself.

Ultimately you never close the door to negotiation not because you trust the enemy or accept their demands, but to not let yourself be defined by conflict. The point is to bear in mind that the ultimate objective is always at least co-existence ; the alternative is too insane to contemplate and would certainly not reflect what Western values are supposed to be.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

If Ukraine allow Russia to keep any part of Ukraine, the Russians will always be looking to take more.

That's war rhetoric, the idea that "they" will always want more, that "they" will never change, that "they" are essentially expansionist and will never accept peace, therefore war is unavoidable and complete victory the only acceptable future.
It's an old line, often based on mistaken readings of history.

Anyway, such thinking is self-defeating. While it can be true at a given point in time, it is not an acceptable basis for any kind of rational thought: if seen as an absolute truth, it would lead to either perpetual war or extermination. There could never be peace, or even co-existence, only war and genocide. Such views on other humans (or on all humans) are a core tenet of fascist thought, the idea that "they" are irredeemable and need to be either crushed or exterminated.

Truth is, without genuine victory, even a totalitarian government will eventually struggle to keep a people motivated for war. Without victory in the field, even a totalitarian government may have to consider negotiation out of self-preservation.
Given the reality of the war in Ukraine, I highly doubt that "the Russians will [...] be looking to take more," regardless of the outcome. Putin and other Russian would-be autocrats might, if they've indeed lost touch with any sense of reality and believe their own insanities (which is a powerful argument for democracy btw).
I'm skeptical to say the least. Russia is an autocracy, but its attempts at totalitarianism are laughable. I highly doubt that the Russian leadership will consider any more military endeavors in the near future (with what army?), and I highly doubt the Russian people have been brainwashed to the point where they'd be enthusiastic about it. Realistically speaking, even if Russia were to get something out of this war, the cost of the conflict alone should guarantee that it stays put for at least a decade, unless China decides it wants to go to war over Taiwan and needs it to open another front.
To my mind, the West has already achieved this or, to be more accurate, the Ukrainians achieved that in the very first months following the Russian invasion. To suggest that the Russians would still want more of... that... reduces them to something barely human.

To be honest, I find the fact that such rhetoric can still be written and applauded after more than a year of a gruesome conflict worrying in itself. War propaganda should not be this successful in the West, and this does not bode well for the future. If Westerners are this desperate for self-righteouness at a time when they should contemplate some dreadfully serious introspection, then the next decades will be grim indeed.

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

For starters, negotiating with people who will then declare war a few months again does not give your people the option to not live in fear - quite the opposite.

47 minutes ago, Werthead said:

One issue is that with these long-standing disputes, it often requires the people most invested in them having died and people growing up in the paradigm saying, "this is horseshit, let's sort it out," which you are much less likely to do when you've invested your name and legacy in the situation.

Yes, these things take a lot of time. The worse the conflict, and the longer it takes to reach an agreement. It's precisely why attempts must be made even at the worst of times - not because they may succeed, but because eventually, in the far future, they may help establish a lasting peace.

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's war rhetoric

It's literally Russia's foreign policy for the last 20 years.

[Rippounet]

Just now, mormont said:

It's literally Russia's foreign policy for the last 20 years.

Really? Well perhaps mimicking it is something we'd want to avoid, right?

[Chad Vader]

18 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

?? You think that Putin is looking to start a missile or nuclear war with Japan (and by extension, the US)?  I mean, Putin has done some very stupid things in the past 18 months, but that is well beyond anything we've seen thus far.  I would consider an invasion of the Baltic states to be significantly more likely (and that is not at all likely either). 

I know I think it unlikely also. I think it's more of Putin flexing in view of not necessarily an enemy in Japan but they are well aware of Japan's stance on Russia