The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

personaldesas said:
One could play devil’s advocate here and point to a handful of agreements about respecting each other’s territorial integrity: the UN Charter, Belovezha in 1991, Budapest in 1994, the 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty etc. So it seems reasonable to ask what would make the next agreement more reliable than the previous ones.

And I guess people wary of a peace deal could argue for Georgia in 2008 as an example of Russia not fully following through on an agreement. “Russia breaks every agreement” is overstating it IMHO, I’m not sure that thinking agreements of this sort are rock solid holds up either.
Click to expand...
you could say the same thing about the west, i don't even want to go into far history, we have the ex President of France and the ex chancellor of Germany admitting publicly that minsk 1 and 2 was a scam, they signed the agreement to allow Ukraine to prepare it self for war. don't know why they decided to acknowledge that is public, maybe they believed their own propaganda that Ukraine was winning. the problem is, how do you get Russia to trust in any other agreements? Russia will need to finish this war or Ukraine will have to agree to Russia terms. period. or this is war without end
 
swerve said:
There's plenty which could be talked about, but first, Russia has to show some willingness to make peace on terms less than total victory. And that's bloody easy to define: Russia has to be prepared to make concessions, not just reduce the extravagance of its demands.

Neither side currently believes that the preexisting (and current, by extension) security arrangements do or did what they were supposed to do. Obviously. One of the chief parties invaded & tried to conquer another party.

What is there to suggest that they will be looking to take more territory? They're demanding it, right now.

It can be true that noone is innocent, & also true that one party is chiefly to blame, & Russia's certainly chiefly to blame.
Click to expand...
the Russians believe that NATO is chiefly to blame. countless warnings about NATO expansion ignored, relentless efforts to regime change Russian friendly governments from the middle east to eastern Europe.

NATO and all their intelligence services need to pack up and leave Ukraine for peace to reign, in the absence of that, Ukraine will lose everything east of the Dnieper river including Odesa, if you are thinking Russia will stop so that what ever is left of Ukraine, will rearm, rebuild and remain a threat to Russia then you are not serious for peace
 
deyhere said:
you could say the same thing about the west, i don't even want to go into far history, we have the ex President of France and the ex chancellor of Germany admitting publicly that minsk 1 and 2 was a scam, they signed the agreement to allow Ukraine to prepare it self for war. don't know why they decided to acknowledge that is public, maybe they believed their own propaganda that Ukraine was winning. the problem is, how do you get Russia to trust in any other agreements? Russia will need to finish this war or Ukraine will have to agree to Russia terms. period. or this is war without end
Click to expand...

Even taking all of that at face value, none of it makes Russia any more reliable. If anything, the distrust you describe reinforces the concern that a peace deal would not hold.
 
vikingatespam said:
Are you actually claiming that NATO would instigate a ground invasion into Russia ?
Click to expand...
I absolutely believe dissolution of Russia is the ultimate interest of elites behind NATO. Whether it's by internal turmoil, ground invasion or something else. Those same elites already instigated ground invasions pretty much in the every corner of the world on pretexts like Sadam's WMD, so I don't see what stops them from doing so to Russia, once they had the opportunity. But it takes conditio sine qua non of Russia's nuclear deterrent being incapacitated.

And having country of approximately 1/3 of Russia's population as a vanguard on your side, along with some other eastern countries, would come in very handy in wearing out the enemy bashibozuk style until the main/elite western body jumps in to finish the battle. Under the guise of 'protection of one of newly formed ex Russian states against the other' or whatever the reason may be. Never too much trouble to make something up.
 
Kurgan said:
I absolutely believe dissolution of Russia is the ultimate interest of elites behind NATO. Whether it's by internal turmoil, ground invasion or something else. Those same elites already instigated ground invasions pretty much in the every corner of the world on pretexts like Sadam's WMD, so I don't see what stops them from doing so to Russia, once they had the opportunity. But it takes conditio sine qua non of Russia's nuclear deterrent being incapacitated.

And having country of approximately 1/3 of Russia's population as a vanguard on your side, along with some other eastern countries, would come in very handy in wearing out the enemy bashibozuk style until the main/elite western body jumps in to finish the battle. Under the guise of 'protection of one of newly formed ex Russian states against the other' or whatever the reason may be. Never too much trouble to make something up.
Click to expand...
Could you name who these "elites" are?
 
No need for NATO to do anything to Russia. Putin’s Ukraine debacle and Russian criminal elites are already ruining Russia. China will help itself to all of the resource rich east. Only NKorea will care about Russia’s ruin…maybe the Iranian Republican Guard (for a few minutes).
 
Kurgan said:
I absolutely believe dissolution of Russia is the ultimate interest of elites behind NATO. Whether it's by internal turmoil, ground invasion or something else. Those same elites already instigated ground invasions pretty much in the every corner of the world on pretexts like Sadam's WMD, so I don't see what stops them from doing so to Russia, once they had the opportunity. But it takes conditio sine qua non of Russia's nuclear deterrent being incapacitated.

And having country of approximately 1/3 of Russia's population as a vanguard on your side, along with some other eastern countries, would come in very handy in wearing out the enemy bashibozuk style until the main/elite western body jumps in to finish the battle. Under the guise of 'protection of one of newly formed ex Russian states against the other' or whatever the reason may be. Never too much trouble to make something up.
Click to expand...

I think this greatly overstates Russia’s place in Western priorities. Most Westerners would prefer a Russia they could trade with and otherwise spend very little time thinking about. For years, much of Europe was happy to buy Russian energy and carry on with its own affairs.

Wanting a country to stop invading its smaller neighbours is hardly the same as wanting to destroy it. If Moscow stopped giving those neighbours reasons to fear it, most people would happily turn their attention elsewhere.
 
personaldesas said:
I think this greatly overstates Russia’s place in Western priorities. Most Westerners would prefer a Russia they could trade with and otherwise spend very little time thinking about. For years, much of Europe was happy to buy Russian energy and carry on with its own affairs.

Wanting a country to stop invading its smaller neighbours is hardly the same as wanting to destroy it. If Moscow stopped giving those neighbours reasons to fear it, most people would happily turn their attention elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I don't have general businessmen or commoners on mind. But the ones at the very top, that have been pulling the strings for a long, long time. The descendants of those who financed communists living outside of Russia, prior to the 1917 Revolution, with the same idea of ruining the Russia (which communism succeeded for about a century).

And as I stated, the "invading the neighbors thing" is in Russian minds probably "Let's get them before they get us". Russia with Ukrainians included barely survived 2 great western invasions, both the greatest invasions yet in known history at the point. With Ukrainians on the other side now chances for the (inevitable in their minds) future go slim so let's take at least half Ukrainians with us and put that border at the huge Dnieper. That's how I see their logic. And as a matter of fact something like 70% of Ukrainians east of Dnieper wouldn't mind that much, at least that's how their voting pretty much went for years.
 
Kurgan said:
I don't have general businessmen or commoners on mind. But the ones at the very top, that have been pulling the strings for a long, long time. The descendants of those who financed communists living outside of Russia, prior to the 1917 Revolution, with the same idea of ruining the Russia (which communism succeeded for about a century).

And as I stated, the "invading the neighbors thing" is in Russian minds probably "Let's get them before they get us". Russia with Ukrainians included barely survived 2 great western invasions, both the greatest invasions yet in known history at the point. With Ukrainians on the other side now chances for the (inevitable in their minds) future go slim so let's take at least half Ukrainians with us and put that border at the huge Dnieper. That's how I see their logic. And as a matter of fact something like 70% of Ukrainians east of Dnieper wouldn't mind that much, at least that's how their voting pretty much went for years.
Click to expand...
Oh no! A multi-generational international conspiracy lasting well over 100 years . . . & you expect to be taken seriously? What next? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

What happened after the fall of the USSR? As soon as Russia had stabilised enough, western capitalists piled in en masse to make money. McDonalds, vendors of technology, consumer products, etc., investors in mining, oil, gas, retailing, & so on . . . All of them hoped for a stable, prosperous Russia, because those are the best conditions for making money, & they poured in billions of dollars, euros etc. Boeing & Airbus wanted peace & for Russia to make money, because selling airliners & then providing support for years is their main business. Bankers & the like wanted financial businesses in Russia. Same for very many other businesses. Huge sums were invested in pipelines to import gas from Russia, giving European countries a huge incentive to keep peace with Russia. Reportedly, that dependence on Russian gas emboldened Putin, because he thought it would make them unwilling to defend Ukraine. Ooops!

All of that & much more shows that you're talking absolute nonsense. Western 'elites', meaning the people with really serious amounts of money such as Jensen Huang, wanted to be able to sell to & buy from Russia profitably & bet a lot of money on that continuing, based on a politically stable & economically successful Russia. Why would they seek to throw all that away?

Or is this to do with the theory that there's a shadowy cabal of members of one religion pulling strings around the world?
 
swerve said:
There's plenty which could be talked about, but first, Russia has to show some willingness to make peace on terms less than total victory. And that's bloody easy to define: Russia has to be prepared to make concessions, not just reduce the extravagance of its demands.

Neither side currently believes that the preexisting (and current, by extension) security arrangements do or did what they were supposed to do. Obviously. One of the chief parties invaded & tried to conquer another party.

What is there to suggest that they will be looking to take more territory? They're demanding it, right now.

It can be true that noone is innocent, & also true that one party is chiefly to blame, & Russia's certainly chiefly to blame.
Click to expand...
But Russia had failed to achieve its goals, allegedly including subjugating all of Ukraine, puppet regime,, etc. This is another point where the narrative/messaging breaks down. We can't have it both ways and jump from one definition of failure/victory to the next, whichever one is convenient at any given time.

Kallas clearly believes that the current security arrangement is fine. She says so in the video she herself posted and I cited above. Some other Euros agree with that.

What is there to suggest that Russia will be looking to take more land after a peace agreement?

I agree with the your last paragraph.

More from Kallas:

IMG_7518.jpeg

It’s pretty clear what her negotiating position is. Which is why Russians say that they have nothing to talk about with Euros (the same is true the other way around?). Which is also why the likes of her will never see the looks of the room on the inside.

IMG_7519.jpeg

I don’t want to tap the sign again, but if the Americans did the same as Euros, Russia would be nearly thriving:

IMG_7520.jpeg

Those ^ numbers exclude tens of billions more (I don’t know what the exact number is) from purchases via third countries. She can keep patting herself on the back while making completely ridiculous statements.

Here, about 3 minutes with ChatGPT:

IMG_7522.png
 
Kurgan said:
I don't have general businessmen or commoners on mind. But the ones at the very top, that have been pulling the strings for a long, long time. The descendants of those who financed communists living outside of Russia, prior to the 1917 Revolution, with the same idea of ruining the Russia (which communism succeeded for about a century).

And as I stated, the "invading the neighbors thing" is in Russian minds probably "Let's get them before they get us". Russia with Ukrainians included barely survived 2 great western invasions, both the greatest invasions yet in known history at the point. With Ukrainians on the other side now chances for the (inevitable in their minds) future go slim so let's take at least half Ukrainians with us and put that border at the huge Dnieper. That's how I see their logic. And as a matter of fact something like 70% of Ukrainians east of Dnieper wouldn't mind that much, at least that's how their voting pretty much went for years.
Click to expand...
How many countries have invaded Russia since the 2nd World War? How many countries has Russia invaded since then? Why are Russian's confused when European countries join NATO.
 
Kurgan said:
I don't have general businessmen or commoners on mind. But the ones at the very top, that have been pulling the strings for a long, long time. The descendants of those who financed communists living outside of Russia, prior to the 1917 Revolution, with the same idea of ruining the Russia (which communism succeeded for about a century).
Click to expand...
Interesting ideas. So is it like a cabal, a secrete society of sorts? So they spent their time to put seed and made communism happen in, call it, Russia, tried but failed to do the same in other countries? They then spent nearly three quarters of a century trying to get rid of communism in the so called Russia and elsewhere? Is it the same group of people or is it two (or more) competing interests groups that did the two things?

Kurgan said:
And as I stated, the "invading the neighbors thing" is in Russian minds probably "Let's get them before they get us". Russia with Ukrainians included barely survived 2 great western invasions, both the greatest invasions yet in known history at the point.
Click to expand...
I can go with “let’s protect our interests while we can”, but “let’s get them before they get us” makes little sense because there was no brink of war, not then and not in the foreseeable future. I can see the situation being as such now though (let’s get them first) - and why I think deescalation is highly desirable - but that is a direct consequence of the invasion itself. One can argue various angles of why the invasion happened, it does not change the overall actual situation at the time (or now).

I agree, those and other invasions and wars had a great deal to do with the way Russians perceive “the West” and security in general. Mongols are probably too far behind in history to remember though to apply the same logic to “the East”? Biggest invasion at that point and still one of, about on par with Napoleon if we take population into account; more dedicated and determined though as they rolled through with about one fifth of their own population - no one can beat that - and ruled for nearly two and a half centuries.

Kurgan said:
With Ukrainians on the other side now chances for the (inevitable in their minds) future go slim so let's take at least half Ukrainians with us and put that border at the huge Dnieper. That's how I see their logic. And as a matter of fact something like 70% of Ukrainians east of Dnieper wouldn't mind that much, at least that's how their voting pretty much went for years.
Click to expand...
You say “now” on the other side and “70%” wouldn’t mind. I think the two are disconnected by about twelve years (call it five even), even if take the 70% figure as is. Take some arbitrary single digit or just about percentage (I don’t know what the “real” number is) and then you would be closer and probably still off. I think voting and its relationship to today and then was discussed just recently.

I actually agree that the river (Dnepr/Dnipro) would constitute a “perfect”/equilibrium border and commented so long time ago (maybe more than once). Problems:
- How do you get there?
- Why?
- What happens if you start losing Belarus, where is the “perfect” border then? And so on.
Somehow, many (I would argue most “successful”) countries don’t have these “perfect” perceived borders and manage to live somehow and mostly happily so. Not without occasional troubles, of course. I should probably cut short here in order not to contradict my usual Russian propaganda programming.

Yes, “the West” fucked up and bigly, in my opinion, expressed previously. This war should had never happened. No one is innocent, but if you set a scale to measure the innocence (most being at the bottom), Russia will be on the very top. This is just how things are, regardless of how we interpret and explain them. Once you opt for war that was not only not needed, but was also completely counterintuitive to one’s own goals, that’s where you get. That’s why so many people got this thing wrong in the beginning, myself including.

Funny (not for me) and true story is that I actually put money where my mouth was at the time, as they say, and bought a fairly significant number of call options before the invasion. I was that much confident it was not going to happen. Well, I got obliterated and lost a good chunk of money. And I do understand Russia better than an average person, let’s call it that. And I still had that much confidence - I don’t think one could have much more confidence than I did on that day, lol. What are you gonna do though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top