Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
You remind me of Neville Chamberlain.
The madness behind the battle for Bakhmut Russian troops are dying in their thousands
- Thread starter serendipity
- Start date
You remind me of Neville Chamberlain.
moon
Satire for Sanity
That looks to be the most likely- but the Russians , imo, will not backdown on any of the rebel regions that have voted to breakaway from Ukraine and become independent/Russian. To the Russians, that would be tantamount to conceding Russian territory.
There is also the hurdle that it is a NATO rule not to allow membership to any state that applies to join while at war. The ramifications of changing that rule mid-war would be disturbing .
moon
Satire for Sanity
Wasn't he a trumpeter, like you ?
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-15-2023
Russian army is so tied up trying to take Bakhmut that they won't be able to launch their anticipated offensive any time soon.
It also buys time for a Ukraine counteroffensive while they waiting for more arms from the West.
The Wagner troops are being killed off as in a turkey shoot.
Portland, OR, San Francisco?
Last edited:
He wouldn't take that.
The West’s hardest task in Ukraine: Convincing Putin he’s losing
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/politics/ukraine-strategy-putin-west/index.html
I doubt Z would either and probably has the blessing of most Ukrainians.
Putin has stirred up a hornet nest.
For now and the foreseeable future it's a war of attrition.
Which comes first? Russia runs out of cannon fodder or the West quits sending weapons so it can fight a war against China.
Althea
Althea told me...
Yes. I see this on a daily basis in the news, but Putin continues to murder women and children each day with long range missiles. The entire world wasted one year clutching their pearls, and now this terrorist action is much worse than it had to be.
Until Ukraine can control the skies, the devastation will continue. Right now Ukraine is using more ammunition each day, than can possibly be replenished by all of the allies aiding their cause.
moon
Satire for Sanity
The Russians were crystal clear that Ukraine was THE red line in NATO's advances. The US backed a coup against the democratically-elected Ukrainian pro-Russian president. Biden chose to ignore Russia's request for secure borders. He imposed sanctions, he armed Ukraine, he blew up Europe's gas pipelines- and Russia is the aggressor ?
Haw, haw..........................haw.
That's their problem, isn't it? If a sovereign country applies to get in NATO it's their choice. All they can do is ask. NATO doesn't invite countries into their alliance. Even Russia can apply.
He became pro-Russian after he was elected as a pro-West president. The Ukraine parliament impeached him successfully.
No he has not. Russia's borders are still secure. No one has invaded Russia. In fact weapons are given to Ukraine on the condition they not be used inside Russia's borders.
Yep. It's war. NATO is supporting the defender, which is Ukraine.
Yuk yuk.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
You think the neocons in charge will even consider giving Putin an off-ramp? That's wishful thinking. They want war. The AP war drums are beating loud.
ExpressLane
Verified User
It's now a world problem.
And if a sovereign country is also killing thousands of Russian speaking and ethnic Russian Ukrainians, it's also their choice. Similarly, if another sovereign country chooses to protect those Russian speakers and ethnic Russians, it's also their choice. Lots of choices to go around. The real issue is where all these choices lead, and what are the best choices for the American public instead of the military industrial complex.
They did a long time ago. Didn't go over so well, as they expected:
Fact: Russia Pitched the Idea of Joining NATO in 1954 | nationalinterest.org
From the article:
**
As strange as it seems, in 1954 when the United States and the Soviet Union were settling into a pattern of Cold War hostilities, the Kremlin actually proposed to join the NATO alliance on March 31 of that year.
The Soviets made the pitch for NATO membership after the Kremlin’s proposal for a pan-European collective security treaty at the Berlin Conference of Foreign Ministers in February 1954 was shot down by Western powers. While the Soviets expected to be rejected—and they were—Moscow considered it to be a win-win proposition.
“Most likely, the organizers of the North Atlantic bloc will react negatively to this step of the Soviet government and will advance many different objections. In that event the governments of the three powers will have exposed themselves, once again, as the organizers of a military bloc against other states and it would strengthen the position of social forces conducting a struggle against the formation of the European Defense Community,” Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov wrote in a memo addressed to Georgy Malenkov—the titular head of state—and Communist Party General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev—with whom power actually rested. A copy of the document can be found at the Wilson Center.
**
He was actually always more sympathetic to the Russian speaking and ethnic Russian community in Ukraine, though not always as much as they'd have liked. I imagine that to be elected in the first place, he had to balance their interests with those of the Ukraine nationalists. What actually happened is that the West and Russia had both been struggling to get him and his administration to side closer to them. The tensions between the 2 sides came to a head during Euromaidan, but there's some important things that happened prior to it. From an article on the Euromaidan crisis that starts its narrative well before that. Bolding the paragraphs I find the most important:
**
The Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approves the draft of the long-awaited Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Yanokuych is expected to officially sign the agreement at the EU’s “Eastern Partnership Summit” in Vilnius on November 28th and 29th.
Russia – Ukraine’s major creditor and biggest trade partner – warns that this treaty would “cause chaos”, break the terms of an existing treaty between Ukraine and Russia, and lead to Ukraine’s economy collapsing. As a counteroffer, they suggest Ukraine sign a new deal with the Eurasian Economic Union.
The Ukrainian government issues a decree suspending preparations for the association agreement (AA). Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko warns the current terms of the agreement would “seriously damage the economy”.
“Pro European” demonstrations begin in Maidan square within days of the decree being issued. A poll run by the Kyiv Post finds an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union: 39% for, 37% against.
Yanukovych attends the Eastern Partnership Summit on the 28th, but does not sign the Association Agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely.
Despite not signing the AA, Yanukovych tells the press that Ukraine still intends to work for closer ties with the EU: “an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist…We are walking along this path and are not changing direction”.
Prime Minister Mykola Azarov echoed this: “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”.
Nevertheless, this is ubiquitously covered in the Western media as Yanukovych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia”.
**
Source:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis” : Genuine grassroots revolution or NATO backed coup? Here are the facts to help you decide. | Off Guardian
No, he wasn't. From the same article quoted above:
**
Within hours of the storming of the city, the Ukrainian parliament votes to strip Yanukovych of his office by 328 votes to 0, with over 120 MPs absent from the vote. This vote was unconstitional and not a legally binding form of impeachment, in any way.
From the eastern city of Kharkiv, Yanukovych gives a televised speech, declaring he was still the “legitimate elected President of Ukraine“, and that he had no intention of fleeing the country.
24/2/2014 – Parliament removes 1/3 of Ukraines Constitutional Court from office, issues an arrest warrant for President Yanukovych.
25/2/2014 – Yanukovych’s own Party of the Regions disavows him in parliament, and he flies to Russia, claiming his life is in danger.
**
I'm not completely sure what moon was referring to, but I suspect she was referring to Russia's request that the west agree to not allowing Ukraine join NATO prior to their military operation in Ukraine. As to weapons being given to Ukraine on the condition that they not be used inside Russia's borders, it appears that this condition has been violated, even if we were to discount Ukraine's military attacks within Crimea. And rest assured that Russia is definitely counting those actions as an assault on Russia itself.
Are you aware that it was the Ukrainian military that started a renewed military assault on the self proclaimed Donbass republics a few days prior to Russia's military operation? Based on what I've read, it was this renewed military assault that persuaded Putin to start his military operation on February 23rd/24th. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud writes all about this ommission in the western mainstream media narrative in an article that I wrote a thread about a while back here:
Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com
moon
Satire for Sanity
That's their problem, isn't it? If a sovereign country applies to get in NATO it's their choice. All they can do is ask. NATO doesn't invite countries into their alliance. Even Russia can apply. He became pro-Russian after he was elected as a pro-West president. The Ukraine parliament impeached him successfully. No he has not. Russia's borders are still secure. No one has invaded Russia. In fact weapons are given to Ukraine on the condition they not be used inside Russia's borders. Yep. It's war. NATO is supporting the defender, which is Ukraine.
Yuk yuk.
You're being silly. NATO exists to fight Russia
He was always pro-Russian. He was removed by a US-led coup and fled in fear of his life. Many more pro-Russian Ukrainians were not so lucky and were murdered
Russia's border security is a matter for the Russians to determine, not NATO
It is impossible for any donor country to control the ultimate destination, or use, of weapons. Lip service to the opposite is laughable. ( Yuk, yuk )
The US is all over Russia's borders and threatening on many fronts. NATO countries are US front-line mugs. Russia is the enemy and the US is the aggressor.
Haw, haw....................haw.
That's their problem, isn't it? If a sovereign country applies to get in NATO it's their choice. All they can do is ask. NATO doesn't invite countries into their alliance. Even Russia can apply. He became pro-Russian after he was elected as a pro-West president. The Ukraine parliament impeached him successfully. No he has not. Russia's borders are still secure. No one has invaded Russia. In fact weapons are given to Ukraine on the condition they not be used inside Russia's borders. Yep. It's war. NATO is supporting the defender, which is Ukraine.
Yuk yuk.
You're being silly. NATO exists to fight Russia
He was always pro-Russian.
I think the sad truth is that Yanukovych, for all his flaws, was in actually pro-Ukrainian, in the sense of the word that applied back then, which -included- Russian speaking Ukrainians as well as ethnic Russians. He was placed in a very difficult position, pressured by both the west and Russia to take their side, when what would have been ideal for Ukraine would have been if he could have brokered a deal that satisfied both parties. I think in post #33 I did a fairly good job of explaining how the west refused to even consider this possibility.
Once he was cast out, the very meaning of being a Ukrainian in Ukraine came to change to a dark nationalistic flavour, akin to how things changed once Hitler rose to power, only instead of jews being the scapegoats for Ukraine's ills, it became ethnic Russians, as well as the many Ukrainians whose first language was Russian.
Agreed. I think this sent both a chilling effect to those who remained in the western side of Ukraine as well as a galvanizing effect for those who rebelled in the east. Evgeny Norin, a Russian historian focused on Russia's wars and international politics, wrote an article that I believe was quite good on the subject of the Odessa massacre and how it galvanized those in eastern Ukraine to rebel:
Burned alive: How the 2014 Odessa massacre became a turning point for Ukraine | RT
Ideally, it could be determined together, through dialogue. Unfortunately, NATO hasn't shown much interest in dialogue.
Or at least, that is what the U.S. as its henchmen, as Zelensky once so aptly put it, would like NATO countries and the world to believe. The truth is that Russia had wanted to be part of the European community for a very long time and I see no reason why it wouldn't still want this in its heart. But ofcourse it doesn't want to be part of a Europe that stands idly by while ethnic Russian and Russian speaking Ukrainians are killed on a daily basis, with weapons provided by the U.S. and much of the European community.
How are you so sure?
I certainly agree that allowing Russia to keep Crimea and the Donetsk region would be a welcome carrot in an abrasive type of diplomacy that's almost been exclusively about sticks. However, at this point, I don't think that Russia would accept giving up territory that it's fought hard for, especially considering the referendum votes they've held wherein all the regions (or parts of them that they control) voted to join Russia. I think what would make much more sense is to let Russia keep what it has in exchange for not trying to take anymore. I think Russia might well welcome this as a favourable compromise. I don't know about Russia accepting the idea of what remains of Ukraine being a part of NATO, but I think such an offer would still be a lot better than what is currently on the table. The reason I think it's -possible- that this might work is that Russia didn't mind when Sweden and Finland applied to NATO. I believe Putin's response alluded to the fact that neither of those countries have been busy killing ethnic Russians and Russian speakers over the last 8 years. That wouldn't be able to be said for the Kyiv based Ukrainian government, but perhaps if they were to promise to not try to retake the parts of Ukraine now under Russian control, that might be enough for Russia to accept such a deal.
As mentioned previously, Russia has a fair amount more than Crimea and the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk controlled before the start of their military operation. While some of it is simply areas of Donetsk and Lugansk that hadn't been in control of the independent republics of the same name, they now also control some territory in 2 other Ukrainian regions, which is why Russia held referendums in parts of 4 Ukrainian regions, rather than just Donetsk and Lugansk. Here's a current map of all the extra territory they've gained since their military operation almost a year ago, with the striped parts being what was independent of Ukraine at the start of Russia's military operation:
Source:
Interactive Map: Russia's Invasion of Ukraine | arcgis.com
moon
Satire for Sanity
Yes, you show a good grasp of the realities. The truth can be extracted from the media if our reading is wide enough.