Well that's a great reference to support your own comments, Europe and the EU are most definitely not the same.^ All over the place is the very India, Turkey, etc. Europe is the EU, the UK, undoubtedly others (literally, Europe).
Pass on the second paragraph.
One example as fsr as India is concerned:
EU bankrolling Putin with growing Russian fuel buys from India, report warns
The EU is paying more for fuel imports made from Moscow’s crude, showcasing the growing failure of its signature price-cap sanction.www.politico.eu
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
You keep repeating "if Russia thinks it is a threat then it is a threat" and yet you don't accept this rationale applies to other states and organisations,
If "NATO thinks Belarus is a threat then it IS a threat" and therefore RUSSIA should accept the demilitarisation of BELARUS if NATO demands it (Kaliningrad doubly so), and if it doesn't NATO should invade and make aje these territories safe for NATO.
rsemmes
Active Member
That invasion was a stupid idea, as proven by the results.
...
Yes, blame the victim (Yanukovich), western morale principles, I guess.
I heard (Constitution) the Kursk invasion was a great idea.
You are talking about (Strategic Credo) a plan or principles? About Kursk or about what you use when you are in the oposition?, when you can say whatever you want because you are not doing anything about it or when what you do is not what you say you were going to do; do you know how politics work? In the West?
As the reports say, Russia is selling a fantasy (a convenient propaganda tool) to Russians. Who are you trying to sell your fantasy to?
Hoover
New Member
Seriously????
Neither the Urkaine nor the NATO ever has been a threat to Russia. The pure feeling by the Russians is in no way any justification for the Russian aggression. Before 2014 and even bevore 2022 a Ukraine NATO membership was not on the desk. As the Russian invaders were in the Donbas and on the Crimean a membership was simply not possible.
The question os not "Ukraine can´t win!" but "How will a cease fire will be for the Urkaine?"
Of course the Ukraine won´t win the war on the military side. It is easy for any on the warm and safe table to ask why Zelenskij doesn´t simple surrender. Hey, would you happily surrender and hand over your country to a terror state without any rights?
A surrender on Russian terms will be the end of the ukraine as a souvereign and indepenend state. Great idea.
Putin knows, he only has to mention his nuclear weapons and the Ukraine supporters are afraid and let the terrorist state do whatever it wants.
And we are knowing the further Russian ideas of a post Ukraine war Europa.
At the end we (the "free world") will have only one chance: Support the Ukraine until a cease fire which saves the Ukraines independence (yes, with loss of territory) and stop the further Russian aggression. If Russia will gain a full victory the Ukraine will be gone, ca. 15m refugees will flee to the west to avoid living in a terror state, Moldavia and other countries will be in danger to be sacked by Russia, too, and the pressure on the Baltic states will increase. That is the game.
And in Feb 2022 the main problem was, that nobody was willing to give the Ukraine any guarantees in case of further Russian aggression. Russia broke every treaty since 1992 with the Ukraine. Every single treaty. So the BoJo´s talk to Zelenskij in Feb 2022 (If you will continue to fight, we will support you) is a nice story, but only half of the story.
rsemmes
Active Member
I disagree with the "should accept", something I never said.
Russia disagrees, as you can see; in the real world.
rsemmes
Active Member
A lot of imagination there... Just one point, we, the free world, when we invade countries?
For some reason, every time I read the word "whataboutism" I think of doublethink, deliberate disregard of History... or blatant hypocrisy.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,647
Leaving aside the... let's say questionable label of "terror state", it's clear the currently discussed peace conditions don't require Zelensky to hand over his country without any rights. You're either blissfully unaware of the negotiations and of Russia's position, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. My question to you is... how is a ceasefire better than accepting Russia's peace conditions (or a version of them)?
This is simply not true. Russia's current terms involve a sovereign and independent Ukraine minus 5 provinces and with a neutrality clause but with the road to EU membership open.
Of course, the Russia that hasn't managed to take Khar'kov or Sumy (or any city with a population of over 500k in this war) will somehow take Europe. Silly and wrong.
What happens if there is no ceasefire? In fact, in what scenario do you envision Russia agreeing to a ceasefire? All the current trend lines, and they've been in place for almost 2 years now, point to Ukraine losing forces faster than they can generate them, and the reverse for Russia. Russia's economy has weathered very strong sanctions and the ability to hit Russia with more sanctions is limited. Aid to Ukraine in terms of physical deliveries (the things actually to be used in the war) has gone down not up. Russia's dynamic is territorial terms has been one of faster advances, not slower ones. How does this end with a ceasefire and not a Ukrainian defeat ending in loss of even more territory and potentially actual loss of independence, on a long enough timeline?
Here's another question for you. Let's say Ukraine fights Russia into a strategic stalemate... somehow. Even then, why would Russia take a ceasefire? In the fall of '22 Russia's war effort was in trouble. Did Russia opt for ceasefire? No. They switched to a strategic defensive posture (minus Prigozhin's private offensive on Bakhmut/Artemovsk) for ~12 months while they weathered Ukraine's summer offensive, and rebuilt their strength. Then they launched their slow push. So if Russia again arrives at a point where they can't sustainable continue offensive operations, why accept a ceasefire? Why not slow offensive operations down to a more manageable level, but continue bombarding Ukraine with missiles and drones to destroy industry, infrastructure, and any western military deliveries they can, while rebuilding their troops?
Here's a third question, how is a ceasefire better than a deal with Russia along terms somewhat similar to what seems to be currently on the table? If Russia isn't to be trusted, what stops them from breaking the ceasefire at a time convenient for them? Western guarantees? Why can't those be applied to a peace deal?
Well this is the fundamental issue. Either the collective west is willing to give Ukraine binding security guarantees or they aren't. If they are, then Ukraine could take the deal Russia is offering (negotiating down to say getting to keep right shore Kherson, and Zaporozhye city, while handing over Slavyansk and Kramatorsk), get western security guarantees and remain independent. And without territorial disputes, the road to EU membership is at least in theory open. If the west isn't willing to offer those guarantees, what good is a ceasefire?
I think this is untrue. Russia offers economic cooperation and deep discounts on energy resources to Belarus, and in the past to Ukraine. I think the problem with Ukraine specifically is that Ukraine's elites were (are?) in a position where they have little to offer their own people. They're thoroughly corrupt, they're an oligarchy much more similar to Russia than to a western democracy, and they've mismanaged Ukraine's economy horribly. As a result they're now well behind Russia economically, they have a population that pre-war had a huge Russian minority, and was culturally very close to Russia, and they had no vision for the future. I don't believe any mount of offering Ukraine's leadership anything positive would have gotten Russia their friendship and cooperation. Yanukovich, who is widely declared to be pro-Russian, was still continuing negotiations about further relations with NATO behind closed doors. If Ukraine gets close to Russia but retains the same robber-baron elites, the end would have been their inevitable fall as their own population asks why they live worse then Russia, despite both emerging from a Soviet past with similar levels of development (arguably a higher one in Ukraine). For Ukraine's leadership a hostile Russia that's the enemy is the best way forward. They likely underestimated just how hostile Russia would get, I doubt they were counting on this situation. But I don't think any amount of being "the sun" would have helped Russia.
Last edited: