The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[John Fedup]

I guess, stability in Crimea is not a priority.

Sir Keir Starmer has said stability in the Middle East is "a priority" following US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, as the world has reacted to the attack.
The prime minister also called on Iran to "return to the negotiating table" to "reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis".

'Stability in Middle East is priority,' says Starmer - as world reacts to strikes

The US struck three sites in Iran, with Donald Trump boasting the country's key nuclear sites were "completely and fully obliterated" in an address to the nation from the White House.

news.sky.com

Maybe it is more difficult to "urge" Zelenski to negotiate.

What level of difficulty would you assign to a Russian mafia chief versus an Iranian Shite religious wacko?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I guess, stability in Crimea is not a priority.

Sir Keir Starmer has said stability in the Middle East is "a priority" following US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, as the world has reacted to the attack.
The prime minister also called on Iran to "return to the negotiating table" to "reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis".

'Stability in Middle East is priority,' says Starmer - as world reacts to strikes

The US struck three sites in Iran, with Donald Trump boasting the country's key nuclear sites were "completely and fully obliterated" in an address to the nation from the White House.

news.sky.com

Maybe it is more difficult to "urge" Zelenski to negotiate.

The start, center, and end of diplomacy is action. That is the essence of it.
You start negotiations because of action. You negotiate promising an action. And the possibilities of outcome of diplomacy result in different courses of action.
The UK, being averse to action, should not be regarded as an important party if what you seek is action to conclude the war. Any war.

 

[rsemmes]

What level of difficulty would you assign to a Russian mafia chief versus an Iranian Shite religious wacko?

Is Zelenski a "Russian mafia chief"?

 

[rsemmes]

The start, center, and end of diplomacy is action. That is the essence of it.
You start negotiations because of action. You negotiate promising an action. And the possibilities of outcome of diplomacy result in different courses of action.
The UK, being averse to action, should not be regarded as an important party if what you seek is action to conclude the war. Any war.

You are defining "war", not "diplomacy". Even if what you are describing looks more like "threat".
The art of diplomacy is to avoid having to take action.
If you are for action, you should applause Putin, he took action.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You are defining "war", not "diplomacy". Even if what you are describing looks more like "threat".
The art of diplomacy is to avoid having to take action.
If you are for action, you should applause Putin, he took action.

I am not talking about war. I am talking about diplomacy. I was very explicit about that.
Diplomacy can lead to war. It can also lead to the cessation or prevention of a war. But to do that, action is needed.
Imagine it is 2014. NATO and its members are in consensus that Russia is preparing for a massive assault to take Ukraine, and will be ready by 2020.
NATO are determined to prevent a war. They conclude that to deter Russia from war, they must close the deployable capability gap between Russia and Europe.
They identify 3 paths:

1. Sanctions to slow Russian armament.
2. Arm Ukraine.
3. Build own capability.
   1. And offer Ukraine certain security guarantees.

Come 2020 Russia is deterred and indefinitely postpones invasion plans.
Multiple sets of action were committed, but neither constitutes war.

Now re-read my post and try to understand my point.

 

[rsemmes]

I am not talking about war. I am talking about diplomacy. I was very explicit about that.
Diplomacy can lead to war. It can also lead to the cessation or prevention of a war. But to do that, action is needed.
Imagine it is 2014. NATO and its members are in consensus that Russia is preparing for a massive assault to take Ukraine, and will be ready by 2020.
NATO are determined to prevent a war. They conclude that to deter Russia from war, they must close the deployable capability gap between Russia and Europe.
They identify 3 paths:

1. Sanctions to slow Russian armament.
2. Arm Ukraine.
3. Build own capability.
   1. And offer Ukraine certain security guarantees.
   2. Come 2020 Russia is deterred and indefinitely postpones invasion plans.

Multiple sets of action were committed, but neither constitutes war.
Now re-read my post and try to understand my point.

Imagine is 2022. Ukraine got back all the land corridor and there is peace now. I don't think diplomacy is re-arranging the past as you like it.
You are happy with NATO imposing its will because of its fortune-telling. Again, congratulate Putin.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Imagine is 2022. Ukraine got back all the land corridor and there is peace now. I don't think diplomacy is re-arranging the past as you like it.
You are happy with NATO imposing its will because of its fortune-telling. Again, congratulate Putin.

1. I did not say diplomacy is the act of time travel. You completely misread what I wrote. What I wrote was an example, a scenario.
"A scenario is a description of a possible series of events, often used to explore potential future situations or to outline the plot of a story or performance".
I do not understand why you would think diplomats are time traveling people. Time travel is not physically viable yet.

2. Further, because it is a scenario, it is hypothetical and did not happen. NATO did not impose its will, and I assure you the past remains unchanged.

3. It is weird that you have so far demanded twice that I praise Putin. Why should I do that? I am not a vatnik. Are you?

 

[Feanor]

I guess, stability in Crimea is not a priority.

Sir Keir Starmer has said stability in the Middle East is "a priority" following US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, as the world has reacted to the attack.
The prime minister also called on Iran to "return to the negotiating table" to "reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis".

'Stability in Middle East is priority,' says Starmer - as world reacts to strikes

The US struck three sites in Iran, with Donald Trump boasting the country's key nuclear sites were "completely and fully obliterated" in an address to the nation from the White House.

news.sky.com

Maybe it is more difficult to "urge" Zelenski to negotiate.

I'm not sure what your point is. Crimea is currently stable and has been since Russia took over. The state it's in might be viewed as undesirable, annexed by Russia, but it's certainly not unstable. As for diplomatic solutions, Trump has repeatedly urged Ukraine to negotiate. Those urges came with implied threats and at least in one case actual pressure by cutting supplies. It hasn't worked.

What level of difficulty would you assign to a Russian mafia chief versus an Iranian Shite religious wacko?

That's the problem, it's not just the chief. If it was just Putin, assassination could be a viable option. The problem is that there's a whole den of them all over the government structures. Putin isn't a dictator, he's the leader of a political clan that's firmly attached to the governmental and economic powers of Russia. So the difficulty isn't "Russian mafia chief". The difficulty is taking on a world power with wide-spread economic influence, a giant nuclear arsenal, and political ties beyond the west to much of the global south, as well as major powers like China and India.

 

[rsemmes]

I'm not sure what your point is.

I used Crimea as I could had used the Black Sea, Eastern Europe or the Russian-Ukrainian border; just as an example. I don't think Starmer has been urging Ukraine to negotiate and Ukraine is at the receiving end of an aggression, as Iran is. My guess is that UK interests, or priority, are there (Iran), not here, Ukraine (Crimea).

Maybe this huge exercise of hypocrisy helps, even if I don't know what words were used in Russian.

El Ministerio de Exteriores de Rusia ha condenado "firmemente" el ataque de Estados Unidos a las plantas nucleares iraníes. "La irresponsable decisión de atacar con misiles y bombas el territorio de un estado soberano, cualesquiera que sean los argumentos que lo justifiquen, supone una violación flagrante del derecho internacional, de la Carta de Naciones Unidas y de las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU", ha indicado el ministerio en un comunicado.
"Hacemos un llamamiento a detener la agresión y a incrementar los esfuerzos para crear las condiciones que hagan posible devolver la situación a una vía diplomática", ha añadido Exteriores.

Guerra entre Ucrania y Rusia, en directo | Al menos tres muertos en un ataque ruso contra la ciudad de Kramatorsk

Guerra entre Ucrania y Rusia, en directo | Al menos tres muertos en un ataque ruso contra la ciudad de Kramatorsk

www.rtve.es

Attacking a sovereign state is irresponsible and it goes against International Law. We make a call to stop the aggression. Russian Foreign Office.

Obviously, the same hypocrisy as condemning (or mentioning international law regarding) Russian aggression but not (Israel) US aggression. Is US (UK?) going to impose sanctions on US because of this act of aggression?

 

[rsemmes]

I did not say diplomacy is the act of time travel.

No, you didn't.
You just created a situation where everything went according to your plan, as you could, just as well, imagined a situation where nothing goes according to plan; including NATO's imposing sanctions based on... what they (you) imagined.

NATO's will, Putin's will.
Only one was implemented, but my impression is that you are happy with the one not implemented, with NATO imposing its will. I wasn't able to detect any criticism on NATO's imagined actions and starting an arms race.

 

[Feanor]

No, you didn't.
You just created a situation where everything went according to your plan, as you could, just as well, imagined a situation where nothing goes according to plan; including NATO's imposing sanctions based on... what they (you) imagined.

NATO's will, Putin's will.
Only one was implemented, but my impression is that you are happy with the one not implemented, with NATO imposing its will. I wasn't able to detect any criticism on NATO's imagined actions and starting an arms race.

I don't think he was advocating for that course or claiming it produced a good outcome. It was an attempt to demonstrate how actions shape diplomacy.

I used Crimea as I could had used the Black Sea, Eastern Europe or the Russian-Ukrainian border; just as an example. I don't think Starmer has been urging Ukraine to negotiate and Ukraine is at the receiving end of an aggression, as Iran is. My guess is that UK interests, or priority, are there (Iran), not here, Ukraine

Or maybe it's the opposite. Ukraine is the priority, and Starmer wants a victory there, not a mediated peace. Trump on the other hand considers Iran the priority and is de-prioritizing Ukraine at this time.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

No, you didn't.
You just created a situation where everything went according to your plan, as you could, just as well, imagined a situation where nothing goes according to plan; including NATO's imposing sanctions based on... what they (you) imagined.

NATO's will, Putin's will.
Only one was implemented, but my impression is that you are happy with the one not implemented, with NATO imposing its will. I wasn't able to detect any criticism on NATO's imagined actions and starting an arms race.

Imagine living into adulthood without understanding basic terms like:

• Example
• Hypothetical
• Scenario
• Imagination

The greatest virtue of the wise is their ability to ask, listen, learn.
Food for thought.

 

[rsemmes]

I don't think he was advocating for

Neither do I, but he seems happy with that, because it was NATO.

 

[rsemmes]

Imagine

Imagine reading "talking of" when I say "you are defining".