Russia - General Discussion.

[John Fedup]

Indeed China (the whole Indochina region) are going to be big winners in relations to this war, and that's regardless of the outcome, with the US in close second place (how close depends on who wins the war in the end). Whether Russia wins or loses it's still going to rely on China for much of resources it needs (both monetary and in terms of goods and services) which would allow the Chinese to strike good deals for Russian energy and various types of other raw materials as well as agricultural products. Similarly whether West wins or loses it's going to be exhausted in terms of its capability to provide military equipment to potential Chinese enemies while its economic growth (especially in Europe) is going to be stifled for some time by various factors such as high energy and food prices.



Logically it should however Russian oil is not sold freely on Western markets, so it doesn't act as a counterweight to higher prices from elsewhere. One more reason is that the Russians are selling oil for much higher prices then reported sometimes the difference being up to 25$ a barrel.



That's all good and well if Europe was actually doing it however in reality Europe is restarting it's coal plants in what they described as short term necessity (I have serious doubts about how short is going to be if the war continues). If we are talking about alternative providers of energy then switching from Russian regime to that of Middle Eastern countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia doesn't improve the "dubious regime" department, if on the other hand we are talking about alternate sources such as green energy the technology is simply not there maybe in 20 years or something like that. Only energy source that could have replaced fossil fuels was nuclear energy but we collectively gave up on that idea some 30-40 years ago, how difficult would it be to replace fossil fuels in Europe with green energy is shown by the fact that only 17% of EUs energy comes from green sources.

One factor on the horizon is small modular nuclear reactors. If proven (several projects now underway), this could get the West to energy independence. Maybe in 50-100 years fusion might be the next true energy revolution…..probably over optimistic wrt the time frame though.

 

[Pukovnik7]

One factor on the horizon is small modular nuclear reactors. If proven (several projects now underway), this could get the West to energy independence. Maybe in 50-100 years fusion might be the next true energy revolution…..probably over optimistic wrt the time frame though.

That however would require brains, which I am not certain Western elites have.

Germany Rejected Nuclear Power—and Deadly Emissions Spiked

After Fukushima, the country opted to decommission its nuclear reactors. The US has a lot to learn from what happened next.

www.wired.com

 

[John Fedup]

That however would require brains, which I am not certain Western elites have.

Germany Rejected Nuclear Power—and Deadly Emissions Spiked

After Fukushima, the country opted to decommission its nuclear reactors. The US has a lot to learn from what happened next.

www.wired.com

The article does a good job of explaining the conflict between the different energy choices. In the case of the US, greed by vested carbon producers is an issue whereas in Germany it seems to be just plain anti- nuclear BS. Big nuclear power plants have escalating costs for all sorts of reasons but governments constantly introducing questionable new safety requirements lead to delays. It is the delays more than the actual safety items that inflate the costs. It remains to be seen if SMNRs can avoid this. We can only hope!

 

[Stuart M]

. Snip
That's all good and well if Europe was actually doing it however in reality Europe is restarting it's coal plants in what they described as short term necessity (I have serious doubts about how short is going to be if the war continues). If we are talking about alternative providers of energy then switching from Russian regime to that of Middle Eastern countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia doesn't improve the "dubious regime" department, if on the other hand we are talking about alternate sources such as green energy the technology is simply not there maybe in 20 years or something like that. Only energy source that could have replaced fossil fuels was nuclear energy but we collectively gave up on that idea some 30-40 years ago, how difficult would it be to replace fossil fuels in Europe with green energy is shown by the fact that only 17% of EUs energy comes from green sources.

Yes they are reusing coal, because there is no choice, but they are also effectively banning the use of fossil fuel in personal and heavy transport vehicles. Given their recent change of heart on ICE but with legal commitments to carbon neutrality there is only one way these objectives can be achieved and that through nuclear, history be damned. To be blunt, in Europe the nation states are not driving this, it's the EU and they are not of a mind to back away from this and the ones who will suffer are the oil exporters.

 

[Karl Franz]

Yes they are reusing coal, because there is no choice, but they are also effectively banning the use of fossil fuel in personal and heavy transport vehicles. Given their recent change of heart on ICE but with legal commitments to carbon neutrality there is only one way these objectives can be achieved and that through nuclear, history be damned. To be blunt, in Europe the nation states are not driving this, it's the EU and they are not of a mind to back away from this and the ones who will suffer are the oil exporters.

But that's kind of my point, there was a choice. Remember at the beginning of the war when various sanctions were being introduced nobody was talking about energy sanctions. There were vague promises about transitioning away from Russian energy but no concrete sanctions or proposals, and then as the pro-Ukrainian voices got louder and louder and Russian performance on the battlefield didn't match expectations it was decided that Russia must be thoroughly defeated in Ukraine and one of the steps was stopping Russian energy exports as a way to bankrupt the country. That's where the choice was, because if they consulted people who actually understood market dynamics they would have told them the same thing @Ananda and I have been saying there is no way to stop Russian energy exports as supply is finite and you will end up paying higher prices which could drive your own economies to recession while doing moderate damage to Russian revenues, which have only recently been shown as last year high energy prices provided a cushion for the Russians.

Now imagine how much easier would it be to bring Russians to the table if there were no restrictions and Europeans were still buying energy like they did before the war, while all other sanctions and weapon supplies were roughly the same. There would be no Russian transition to alternative markets, they would still be highly dependent on capital inflow from Europe, and much more willing to compromise and accept various proposals as there would have been a mutually beneficial link between the two sides which if severed would be highly damaging to both and would serve as a foundation of trust between them.

My overall point is that European policy makers badly miscalculated (if they calculated at all) the damage they were doing to the Russians and the consequences they themselves would feel from this, while ignoring all the benefits for their economy and for future negotiations. It seems like their decisions were guided not by fact-based analysis and predictions but by passion-driven wishful thinking.

 

[Redshift]

But that's kind of my point, there was a choice. Remember at the beginning of the war when various sanctions were being introduced nobody was talking about energy sanctions. There were vague promises about transitioning away from Russian energy but no concrete sanctions or proposals, and then as the pro-Ukrainian voices got louder and louder and Russian performance on the battlefield didn't match expectations it was decided that Russia must be thoroughly defeated in Ukraine and one of the steps was stopping Russian energy exports as a way to bankrupt the country. That's where the choice was, because if they consulted people who actually understood market dynamics they would have told them the same thing @Ananda and I have been saying there is no way to stop Russian energy exports as supply is finite and you will end up paying higher prices which could drive your own economies to recession while doing moderate damage to Russian revenues, which have only recently been shown as last year high energy prices provided a cushion for the Russians.

Now imagine how much easier would it be to bring Russians to the table if there were no restrictions and Europeans were still buying energy like they did before the war, while all other sanctions and weapon supplies were roughly the same. There would be no Russian transition to alternative markets, they would still be highly dependent on capital inflow from Europe, and much more willing to compromise and accept various proposals as there would have been a mutually beneficial link between the two sides which if severed would be highly damaging to both and would serve as a foundation of trust between them.

My overall point is that European policy makers badly miscalculated (if they calculated at all) the damage they were doing to the Russians and the consequences they themselves would feel from this, while ignoring all the benefits for their economy and for future negotiations. It seems like their decisions were guided not by fact-based analysis and predictions but by passion-driven wishful thinking.

This analysis totally fails to take into account the power that Russia (thought they) had over Europe by threatening to restrict and turn off the gas supply.

It was foolish in the extreme to allow Europe, and Germany in particular, to be almost totally dependent on Russia for its energy.

The blackmail factor had to be removed, regardless of the economic consequences.

 

[Redshift]

This analysis totally fails to take into account the power that Russia (thought they) had over Europe by threatening to restrict and turn off the gas supply.

It was foolish in the extreme to allow Europe, and Germany in particular, to be almost totally dependent on Russia for its energy.

The blackmail factor had to be removed, regardless of the economic consequences.

Your argument is also circular, you state that Russia had no problem transitioning it's gas exports from Europe to other countries and this European sanctions were utterly ineffective.

You then conclude that if Europe had continued to buy Russian gas we would have had some sort of upper hand in negotiations with Russia, how could this be true? As soon as Europe tried to use it's gas purchase as negotiating collateral surely Russia would simply, and easily moved it's gas exports elsewhere.

All of the power , with regards to Russian gas and oil exports to the Europeans was entirely in Russia's control according to your arguments.

We did exactly the right thing, markets stabilise, they already are doing so, short term pain for us yes, it was necessary for us to

 

[Karl Franz]

This analysis totally fails to take into account the power that Russia (thought they) had over Europe by threatening to restrict and turn off the gas supply.

It was foolish in the extreme to allow Europe, and Germany in particular, to be almost totally dependent on Russia for its energy.

The blackmail factor had to be removed, regardless of the economic consequences.

Your argument is also circular, you state that Russia had no problem transitioning it's gas exports from Europe to other countries and this European sanctions were utterly ineffective.

You then conclude that if Europe had continued to buy Russian gas we would have had some sort of upper hand in negotiations with Russia, how could this be true? As soon as Europe tried to use it's gas purchase as negotiating collateral surely Russia would simply, and easily moved it's gas exports elsewhere.

All of the power , with regards to Russian gas and oil exports to the Europeans was entirely in Russia's control according to your arguments.

We did exactly the right thing, markets stabilise, they already are doing so, short term pain for us yes, it was necessary for us to

To start with things I didn't say, I never said that Russians would have no problem transitioning to other markets (that's why they are offering discounts) nor did I say they would not take significant hit to their revenues, I simply stated that Europeans by cutting the energy supplies from Russia did more damage to themselves than to Russians. If your opinion is that they should have done this as you said regardless of the costs you are of course entitled to it as I am entitled to think you are wrong.

I also did not claim that anyone should "use" energy supplies as a trump card but that their very existence was a foundation upon which trust can be build by being a looming problem for both sides, if one side decided to go all in and cut them they would be hurting not only their opponent but themselves in the process.

Lastly I did not claim that Russians have the upper hand with regards to oil and gas exports to Europe, on the contrary I believe Europeans had the upper hand as they were the ones making the moves while the Russians were reacting to them. As a supplier one of the most important things if not the most important is the reliability to deliver goods as efficiently and timely as possible, that is the main reason Russians were still supplying oil and gas to Europe even though Europeans publicly stated that they were just filling their reserves and once they were set for winter they would stop buying Russian gas/oil. And yet the energy kept flowing westwards even through Ukrainian pipelines, Russians were literally paying a country that they are in war with huge amounts of cash, the reason being Russians were showing their potential future customers how reliable they are regardless of current relations between them. With this in mind I don't think the blackmail idea was ever realistically possible but I'm open to any suggestions how it would have unfolded.

As for the short term pain and market stabilization, I don't think many people would agree with this as we now have talk about the lost decade, that the era of cheap energy in Europe is over and looming deindustrialization of Europe, all of which are major long term consequences for the Europeans that are going to affect millions of people across the continent, mix that in with high inflation and you get a great depression type of a scenario. Will we get the worst case scenario or something less severe remains to be seen, however Europe is not out of the woods yet.

 

[Feanor]

But that's kind of my point, there was a choice. Remember at the beginning of the war when various sanctions were being introduced nobody was talking about energy sanctions. There were vague promises about transitioning away from Russian energy but no concrete sanctions or proposals, and then as the pro-Ukrainian voices got louder and louder and Russian performance on the battlefield didn't match expectations it was decided that Russia must be thoroughly defeated in Ukraine and one of the steps was stopping Russian energy exports as a way to bankrupt the country. That's where the choice was, because if they consulted people who actually understood market dynamics they would have told them the same thing @Ananda and I have been saying there is no way to stop Russian energy exports as supply is finite and you will end up paying higher prices which could drive your own economies to recession while doing moderate damage to Russian revenues, which have only recently been shown as last year high energy prices provided a cushion for the Russians.

Now imagine how much easier would it be to bring Russians to the table if there were no restrictions and Europeans were still buying energy like they did before the war, while all other sanctions and weapon supplies were roughly the same. There would be no Russian transition to alternative markets, they would still be highly dependent on capital inflow from Europe, and much more willing to compromise and accept various proposals as there would have been a mutually beneficial link between the two sides which if severed would be highly damaging to both and would serve as a foundation of trust between them.

My overall point is that European policy makers badly miscalculated (if they calculated at all) the damage they were doing to the Russians and the consequences they themselves would feel from this, while ignoring all the benefits for their economy and for future negotiations. It seems like their decisions were guided not by fact-based analysis and predictions but by passion-driven wishful thinking.

You're assuming there is a desire to bring Russia to the table. I don't think anything is needed to have Russia at the table. Russia is ready to be at the table now. I think there is little desire to actually negotiate with Russia on the part of either Ukraine or the US. In general, we're taught from childhood to talk over problems rather then fight. So when someone says that Russia and Ukraine should negotiate an ending to the war intsead of fighting people tend to agree but only because they don't understand what that means. Remember, negotiations are give and take. A negotiation is a transaction, a deal. So the question becomes what does Ukraine want from Russia? Well that's pretty obvious. Ukraine wants the war to stop, Russia to withdraw, ideally from all territory Ukraine claims, including Crimea, and hopefully pay for the damage. Ok now what is Ukraine willing to give in exchange. Peace? And nothing else? That's not exactly a good deal for Russia. What should Ukraine give up in exchange for getting what it wants? If your answer is "Nothing, Ukraine is the victim here!" then you've just closed off any possibility of negotiations. If you want justice or fairness you go to court. Negotiations are a market. There is a situation on the ground and Russia is happy to negotiate with that reality in mind. Ukraine and many others are not. Hence no negotiations are possible. Having Russian hydrocarbons on the EU market does nothing to help with this.

 

[ngatimozart]

You're assuming there is a desire to bring Russia to the table. I don't think anything is needed to have Russia at the table. Russia is ready to be at the table now. I think there is little desire to actually negotiate with Russia on the part of either Ukraine or the US. In general, we're taught from childhood to talk over problems rather then fight. So when someone says that Russia and Ukraine should negotiate an ending to the war intsead of fighting people tend to agree but only because they don't understand what that means. Remember, negotiations are give and take. A negotiation is a transaction, a deal. So the question becomes what does Ukraine want from Russia? Well that's pretty obvious. Ukraine wants the war to stop, Russia to withdraw, ideally from all territory Ukraine claims, including Crimea, and hopefully pay for the damage. Ok now what is Ukraine willing to give in exchange. Peace? And nothing else? That's not exactly a good deal for Russia. What should Ukraine give up in exchange for getting what it wants? If your answer is "Nothing, Ukraine is the victim here!" then you've just closed off any possibility of negotiations. If you want justice or fairness you go to court. Negotiations are a market. There is a situation on the ground and Russia is happy to negotiate with that reality in mind. Ukraine and many others are not. Hence no negotiations are possible. Having Russian hydrocarbons on the EU market does nothing to help with this.

Your argument implies that Putin's Russia will negotiate in good faith. The problem with that is Putin has shown that he doesn't act in good faith and like Herr Hitler, Comrade Stalin, and Comrade Xi, will not keep agreements that he has made. You claim that there should be give and take, answer me why Putin's Russia should be rewarded in any form for its illegal and brazen act of an unprovoked attack against Ukraine? The allies, including the USSR, rightfully punished both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan for their wanton acts of aggression and war crimes that they committed during and before WW2. What makes Russia so special that it shouldn't suffer the same fate?

 

[Ananda]

why Putin's Russia should be rewarded in any form for its illegal and brazen act of an unprovoked attack against Ukraine

This talk on unprovoked attack by West on Russia in Ukraine, is why many outside collective West are in the fence. They know what Russia done is wrong and against International rule, however many of them knows it is not simple black and white. Talking unprovoked we (non west) also believe West/NATO is cornering Russia even before 2014. There's even pundits in West believe on this.

I'm not going to open argument on this, as we already done it in beginning of this war. Just point out that what West believe and what other non West believe on this war, there's gap which results why many outside West still engage Russia. So global isolation on Russia as Western leaders hope is not happening.

So yes, talking on this point is useless, as both sides especially Ukraine and West still believe they can still win the war in the ground. Talking will only happening if both sides are exhausted enough on the ground, or one side ready to capitulate. This is why the war since May last year already become war of attrition.

Western media talk for Ukrainian this is war of existence. For Russian judging by their online (not government media) communities, like it or not Putin manage rallies most of his countryman to fell this is also war of existence on Russia. So if West still dream on Russia capitulation, question will be is all West public (not just their politician) ready for WW3?

Note:
On Xi's, as coming from one in ASEAN and already wary on CCP action in SCS. I can only say so far Xi's is still demand more than what China entitled too. However so far they are not showing they are not keeping their part of bargain. So there's different so far then your claim he's also not keeping the agreement. So far the neighbors of China in ASEAN and even India still see them demand more then their worth, but not automatically means already untrustworthy. There's different between untrustworthy and demanding. This is why even India still engage with China in BRICS.

 

[seaspear]

Chamberlain had give and take on the Sudetenland and reached an agreement with Hitler
Sudetenland | Facts, History, & Annexation by Hitler | Britannica
This document by WIKI (sorry) provides some context to Hitlers machinations against Poland soon after and even the secret deal with the Soviets on dividing up Poland
German–Polish declaration of non-aggression - Wikipedia
Im not sure that an attempt to have Russia receive the same fate as Axis countries would not start WW3 economic sanctions should be enough

 

[Feanor]

Your argument implies that Putin's Russia will negotiate in good faith. The problem with that is Putin has shown that he doesn't act in good faith and like Herr Hitler, Comrade Stalin, and Comrade Xi, will not keep agreements that he has made. You claim that there should be give and take, answer me why Putin's Russia should be rewarded in any form for its illegal and brazen act of an unprovoked attack against Ukraine? The allies, including the USSR, rightfully punished both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan for their wanton acts of aggression and war crimes that they committed during and before WW2. What makes Russia so special that it shouldn't suffer the same fate?

At no point did I claim he should be rewarded. But I think he's not completely in charge. And I think Russia is ready to negotiate. My point was more fundamental. You can either ask for a "fair" outcome (whatever that may be in your opinion) or a negotiated one. But it's almost impossible for the two to be one and the same. If you want fairness, you don't want negotiation. And vice versa. This is a logical contradiction.

While we're on the subject of punishments. Anyone punish the US for what it did to the Phillipines or the USSR for Poland and the Baltics? Let's not pretend that the post WWII settlement was anything other then a negotiated settlement between the winners (at the expense of the losers and those too weak to get a voice) that had nothing to do with fairness or justice. Except of course in the minds of posterior generations to whom both sides sold it as such, with their respective ideological tints.

 

[Pukovnik7]

Your argument implies that Putin's Russia will negotiate in good faith. The problem with that is Putin has shown that he doesn't act in good faith and like Herr Hitler, Comrade Stalin, and Comrade Xi, will not keep agreements that he has made. You claim that there should be give and take, answer me why Putin's Russia should be rewarded in any form for its illegal and brazen act of an unprovoked attack against Ukraine? The allies, including the USSR, rightfully punished both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan for their wanton acts of aggression and war crimes that they committed during and before WW2. What makes Russia so special that it shouldn't suffer the same fate?

Problem is, one should also look at what is possible. Why was USSR rewarded for its assistance to Germany in the interwar period and for its blatant breaches of international right? Because it was the only practical outcome.

If Ukraine can win this militarily, yes, it should. If it cannot, it should negotiate. That is all there is to it.

 

[tonnyc]

All this talk about negotiation feels like it's missing something crucial. Which is that neither side can give what the other want. Not without ensuring their own political downfall.

As best as I can tell, Ukraine will not settle for anything less that status-quo ante bellum. That is, a return to the February 2022 border. They will continue to consider Crimea as theirs but can probably accept a cease fire otherwise. They'll continue to consider Luhansk and Donetsk as theirs and will continue military operations against the rebels there. But Russia will not withdraw to the February 2022 border because they already annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Giving up on those would mean loss of legitimacy of the Russian government. It would mean they wasted a whole lot of lives and money for nothing. I don't think Putin's government can weather such a political blowback and thus they won't accept a return to the February 2022 border.

Russia will not settle for anything less than the continued occupation their current position. But Ukraine's territorial integrity means the government can't give Russia that. If they did, the Zelensky government falls and whoever replaces him resumes the war.

 

[Karl Franz]

You're assuming there is a desire to bring Russia to the table. I don't think anything is needed to have Russia at the table. Russia is ready to be at the table now. I think there is little desire to actually negotiate with Russia on the part of either Ukraine or the US. In general, we're taught from childhood to talk over problems rather then fight. So when someone says that Russia and Ukraine should negotiate an ending to the war intsead of fighting people tend to agree but only because they don't understand what that means. Remember, negotiations are give and take. A negotiation is a transaction, a deal. So the question becomes what does Ukraine want from Russia? Well that's pretty obvious. Ukraine wants the war to stop, Russia to withdraw, ideally from all territory Ukraine claims, including Crimea, and hopefully pay for the damage. Ok now what is Ukraine willing to give in exchange. Peace? And nothing else? That's not exactly a good deal for Russia. What should Ukraine give up in exchange for getting what it wants? If your answer is "Nothing, Ukraine is the victim here!" then you've just closed off any possibility of negotiations. If you want justice or fairness you go to court. Negotiations are a market. There is a situation on the ground and Russia is happy to negotiate with that reality in mind. Ukraine and many others are not. Hence no negotiations are possible. Having Russian hydrocarbons on the EU market does nothing to help with this.

I honestly don’t take much stock in terms such as justice or fairness in international relations, in my opinion there are no good or bad countries, each country follows its national interests and does good and bad stuff. As such I don’t believe that Russians are bad guys nor do I believe Ukrainians/Western powers are the bad guys. This conflict has its roots in history starting in 2014 further back to 1991 and then to communist takeover of Russia going all the way back to the time of the tsars and conquest of the territories that are contested now. History didn’t start nor did it end in 1991 as many would like us to think but history also doesn’t justify today’s actions. Who is in the right or wrong depends on who is telling the story or more precisely who gets to tell it.

I agree that the West is not ready to negotiate, they still believe they can achieve victory on the field of battle, at least that’s what their politicians believe, we see that their military leaders are not so sure as we can see in recent statements. Regardless sooner or later they will have to and that’s where all the burned bridges come into play like cutting energy ties. When I say bring Russians to the table I don’t mean get them to simply show up, you can do that now as you said, but actually make them trust that the other side is going to implement what is agreed upon as no doubt Minsk 2 agreement will be at the back of their mind and a confession of Merkel and Hollande that it was just a time buying measure. The distrust between the sides is so great and as a consequence both sides will go in with outlandish positions unwilling to compromise prolonging the war, unless of course one side achieves a decisive victory on the field.

How a compromise would look like we can only guess but we can be sure that many positions once held will have to give way to settle this conflict.

 

[seaspear]

To say the "West" has to negotiate or compromise suggests saying that Ukraine has no direct say in this matter of its sovereignty ,if United nations resolutions on this should be ignored to end outright wars of aggression why wont others start? , if Taiwan is next does that be ignored as well? ,at what point does the United Nations become irrelevant with any of its resolutions passed on this and even committed to by aggressor nations ?

 

[koxinga]

To say the "West" has to negotiate or compromise suggests saying that Ukraine has no direct say in this matter of its sovereignty ,if United nations resolutions on this should be ignored to end outright wars of aggression why wont others start?

Ukraine does have a say in its own sovereignty. Negotiation doesn't replies their interests or voices are ignored. But the reality is Ukraine's ability to back up those words to hold on to their lands depends largely on Western support.

I would switch the question around and ask: What is Western democracies say with regards the direction of the conflict? Unconditional support for unconditional period of time and let Ukraine decide on what terms it decides to start/stop?

Reality has a habit of catching up with lofty statements after a few years. During the Vietnam war, the US Administrations from Kennedy to LBJ offered various statements of unconditional support to the South Vietnam regime and billions in aid. But at some point, even the most powerful nations will have to throw in the towel.

@tonnyc Negotiations here is an acknowledgment that neither side is going to get what they want but are forced to accept what it is, however unpalatable or politically costly. It may take years to get there with millions dead. It will take them to get past the "sunk cost" fallacy. So I am not expecting anything so soon. I hope the Ukrainians can win it though.

if Taiwan is next does that be ignored as well? ,at what point does the United Nations become irrelevant with any of its resolutions passed on this and even committed to by aggressor nations ?

If China attacks Taiwan, the US will sponsor a resolution condemming the invasion and seek to marshall the collective indignation of the world to sanction China etc. and Russia along with China will throw their veto cards and the resolution dies in UNSC. That is going to be the UN for you.

Then the reality is up to the military might of the US, the geopolitical influence of AUKUS + Japan and SK to stop the Chinese. UN is going to have little say in Taiwan's survival at that point other than offer statements of support/along with the European Parliament, strongly worded condemnation from ASEAN etc. India will offer condemnations but strengthen their borders with China with a view of securing their LoC.

 

[seaspear]

There is a difference between the "boots on the ground" beliefs " practices adopted by various countries in the past that were not in defence of their own sovereignty but pursuit of geo political interests assisting a country defend its rights has plenty of precedents even Russia assisted North Vietnam with weapons it could deploy against America and America in Afghanistan supplying Stinger missiles to Afghan forces fighting Russia the difference there is that annexation of those countries was not a goal by either country.
I'm not even sure there would be a resolution by the U.S since its likely to be vetoed by both Russia and China who are permanent members of the security council China in the past has shown its willing to ignore International court findings on its territorial claims in the Pacific ,the fact is most U.N countries don't recognise Taiwan

 

[Dead Money]

Remember, negotiations are give and take. A negotiation is a transaction, a deal. So the question becomes what does Ukraine want from Russia? Well that's pretty obvious. Ukraine wants the war to stop, Russia to withdraw, ideally from all territory Ukraine claims, including Crimea, and hopefully pay for the damage. Ok now what is Ukraine willing to give in exchange. Peace? And nothing else? That's not exactly a good deal for Russia. What should Ukraine give up in exchange for getting what it wants?

Negotiations are a market - but there is no requirement for both parties to give something meaningful to reach an agreement.

How much did the Taliban 'give in exchange' during negotiations for NATO to withdraw from Afghanistan? A five to one prisoner swap in their favour, and a paper promise to not harbour terrorists in their territory - in return for a NATO withdrawal from claimed territories.

I'm sure that Ukraine would be willing to entertain a similar level of give and take with Russia.