Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 74K
  • Politics 
The European oil/gas sales are a tiny fraction of $1 trillion. They were around $20 billion in 2024 and that was an increase from the prior year. Maybe $60 billion, total, since the beginning of the war (probably less). That's my whole point - the very article you cite makes perfectly clear that European spending Russian oil and gas is nowhere near $1 trillion (as do plenty of other sources of information) yet you continue to repeat the false information uncritically because you think it helps your point to do so.

I tend to share your frustration that the European countries can't just quit the Russian oil and gas cold turkey, and that revenue has surely been beneficial to Russia, but the idea that they're keeping Russia in the war is silly. (Including because that Russian oil and gas likely would have been bought by someone else, if not the European countries.) The major things that are going to make it hard for Russia to continue this war are manpower and heavy weaponry. The BBC just estimated that Russian military deaths since February 2022 are between 146k and 211k. Not including wounded, prisoners, or MIA. That's something like 2.5x-3.5x total US deaths in Vietnam, but the Russian deaths have occurred over a much shorter time period. Russia's military is depleted and demoralized. They had to bring in North Korean troops to help replace personnel losses, and those troops have been shredded. They've also had their heavy equipment (tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc) decimated - I've seen estimates over 50% - and in many cases are now relying on Soviet-era equipment. They can't easily replace that equipment, even with extra money from oil and gas sales.

Again, not once have you even attempted to grapple with the central issue with Trump's plan of appeasing Putin: appeasement of dictators with territorial ambitions does not work as a long term strategy. By definition it does not lead to a lasting peace. Putin isn't going to just stop. He's isn't going to be satisfied with a sliver of Ukraine, any more than he was satisfied with controlling Crimea or the Donbas before. He does not think Ukraine should exist as a country. He likely does not think the Baltics should exist as countries. As leader of Russia he has repeatedly invaded sovereign nations around Russia. He will continue to do so if he is rewarded for doing it. The only way to get a lasting peace with Russia is to defeat it and to reinforce the message we, along with NATO and the UN, have consistently delivered for the last 50+ years: we will not allow wars of territorial conquest anywhere in the world, and anyone who launches such a war will face the opposition of the united international community. If Russia and China perceive that we are no longer sending that message, they will feel emboldened to pursue (or continuing pursuing) the territorial wars they want to pursue.

The problem is we now have a President who doesn't understand, and has no interest in, the lessons of history. He waves away the importance of a stable world order where no one seeks to expand their own borders, through conquest or otherwise, because he in fact has the naked ambition of expanding America's borders. He sympathizes with Putin's ambition of expanding a new, modern Russian empire because he wants America to be imperialist too. You see it in his constant talking about expanding US territory to include Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, whatever.

The peace trump wants to pursue--Russian appeasement--not only will not help avert WWII, it's going to help cause it. Trump's foreign policy is lessening the US's great power role as a deterrent to imperialist ambitions, and in fact Trump's own imperialist ambitions are going to accelerate the process. To ignore this is to ignore history.
Your argument and the rest of the zzl's is based on pure assumption. You assume trump is appeasing putin because you want to think the worst. In reality you have no clue what trump is negotiating. You can't say anything is good or bad until you have details, though i have zero doubt that unless trump gets putin to pull back to the original border, leave crimea, repay for the building of ukraine, agree to nato membership for ukraine, and for putin to resign you will say its appeasement. In other words there is little doubt that any objective thought will be applied to what is agreed upon vs what continuing the war would achieve. Just "if trump is for it, it has to be bad."

You seemingly are ignoring history as well. What was the US's response to invading Crimea? What was done prior to the most recent invasion to dissuade putin from invading? There was zero fear of any US or european response. Why don't you factor that into your analysis?

How do you plan on defeating Russia short of war? Russia has more troops than ukraine has, russia has china and NK to help it with equipment. You planning on expecting ukraine to put its women and children on the front lines? If you have no troops you can't wage war. How do you expect to overcome that?
 
My views changed as news changed. I've never been afraid to criticize trump.
Season 4 Whatever GIF by The Office

The only “news” that has materially changed in Ukraine from last year to this year is Trump shifting the US’s support from Ukraine to Russia. Had that not happened, Ukraine would be in the same position today it was in when you thought we should continue doing what we were doing.
 
Your argument and the rest of the zzl's is based on pure assumption. You assume trump is appeasing putin because you want to think the worst. In reality you have no clue what trump is negotiating. You can't say anything is good or bad until you have details, though i have zero doubt that unless trump gets putin to pull back to the original border, leave crimea, repay for the building of ukraine, agree to nato membership for ukraine, and for putin to resign you will say its appeasement. In other words there is little doubt that any objective thought will be applied to what is agreed upon vs what continuing the war would achieve. Just "if trump is for it, it has to be bad."

You seemingly are ignoring history as well. What was the US's response to invading Crimea? What was done prior to the most recent invasion to dissuade putin from invading? There was zero fear of any US or european response. Why don't you factor that into your analysis?

How do you plan on defeating Russia short of war? Russia has more troops than ukraine has, russia has china and NK to help it with equipment. You planning on expecting ukraine to put its women and children on the front lines? If you have no troops you can't wage war. How do you expect to overcome that?
You keep acting like it's some great mystery what Trump wants as part of a peace deal. Trump speaks in public, all the time, about what should and shouldn't be a part of peace with Russia. He has made clear that Russia should be allowed to keep territorial gains and that he opposes security guarantees for Ukraine (and certainly NATO membership for Ukraine). He has said nothing about even a possibility of Russia paying reparations or anything else to offset the damage caused by its unprovoked invasion. Allowing Russia to keep any territorial gains is appeasement. Full stop. Not to mention that Trump is now openly pining to do business deals in Russia. if you're so concerned about Europeans buying Russian oil and gas, why are you not oppose to Trump helping to rebuild Russia's economy for its next invasion? Any future business deals in Russia should be off the table unless and until Russia has new leadership and has convincingly disclaimed future territorial ambitions.

In terms of defeating Russia in war, Ukraine may be short of manpower but if the US and Europe continue to supply it, it can continue to better Russia in terms of technology and heavy weaponry. Whatever Putin wants you to think, Russia does not have an endless supply of experienced soldiers (not to mention tanks and armored personnel carriers) to feed into the wood chipper.

And again, your obsession with re-litigating the foreign policy decisions of past US admins on this issue is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the discussion on what we should do now. I don't agree with all the past decisions the US has made on Ukraine, across a variety of administrations. I would have preferred a harder line on Russia at times in the past.
 
You keep acting like it's some great mystery what Trump wants as part of a peace deal. Trump speaks in public, all the time, about what should and shouldn't be a part of peace with Russia. He has made clear that Russia should be allowed to keep territorial gains and that he opposes security guarantees for Ukraine (and certainly NATO membership for Ukraine). He has said nothing about even a possibility of Russia paying reparations or anything else to offset the damage caused by its unprovoked invasion. Allowing Russia to keep any territorial gains is appeasement. Full stop. Not to mention that Trump is now openly pining to do business deals in Russia. if you're so concerned about Europeans buying Russian oil and gas, why are you not oppose to Trump helping to rebuild Russia's economy for its next invasion? Any future business deals in Russia should be off the table unless and until Russia has new leadership and has convincingly disclaimed future territorial ambitions.

In terms of defeating Russia in war, Ukraine may be short of manpower but if the US and Europe continue to supply it, it can continue to better Russia in terms of technology and heavy weaponry. Whatever Putin wants you to think, Russia does not have an endless supply of experienced soldiers (not to mention tanks and armored personnel carriers) to feed into the wood chipper.

And again, your obsession with re-litigating the foreign policy decisions of past US admins on this issue is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the discussion on what we should do now. I don't agree with all the past decisions the US has made on Ukraine, across a variety of administrations. I would have preferred a harder line on Russia at times in the past.
I wouldn't categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. I'd characterize it as pragmatic reality.

If you don't want Russia keeping their territorial gains, you really have to describe how you would stop it. Are you going to keep funneling Ukraine armaments? It hasn't worked yet. Neither have economic sanctions.

It might work in the future if Russia collapses but there are also signs that Ukraine is close to collapse. Or the war could drag on for more years where Russia and Ukraine both lose a generation of young men and everyone else loses a bunch of resources that could be used for something more productive.

So if what we are doing hasn't worked so far, do you think it's going to work in the future or are you proposing A New path? Do you want to put American boots on the ground? Do you want Europeans to put soldiers into the fight? Do you want the tooth fairy to just make it all go away?

War's end. Thank goodness. They don't always end the way you want them to which can be pretty disappointing but ending a war with a less than desirable peace is often better than letting a war drag on and getting a similar or worse peace years later. We should have learned that lesson with Afghanistan.
 
I wouldn't categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. I'd characterize it as pragmatic reality.
You’ve posted some dumb shit before, but this might take the cake.

Letting an aggressor nation keep territory it has already taken by force with the promise they won’t take any more is literally the definition of appeasement as it applies to international war.

If you look the word up, you’ll probably see a picture of Neville Chamberlain shaking Hitler’s hand while Hitler is crossing his fingers behind his back.
 
You’ve posted some dumb shit before, but this might take the cake.

Letting an aggressor nation keep territory it has already taken by force with the promise they won’t take any more is literally the definition of appeasement as it applies to international war.

If you look the word up, you’ll probably see a picture of Neville Chamberlain shaking Hitler’s hand while Hitler is crossing his fingers behind his back.
So you aren't going to let Russia keep their gains? How?
 
I wouldn't categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. I'd characterize it as pragmatic reality.

If you don't want Russia keeping their territorial gains, you really have to describe how you would stop it. Are you going to keep funneling Ukraine armaments? It hasn't worked yet. Neither have economic sanctions.

It might work in the future if Russia collapses but there are also signs that Ukraine is close to collapse. Or the war could drag on for more years where Russia and Ukraine both lose a generation of young men and everyone else loses a bunch of resources that could be used for something more productive.

So if what we are doing hasn't worked so far, do you think it's going to work in the future or are you proposing A New path? Do you want to put American boots on the ground? Do you want Europeans to put soldiers into the fight? Do you want the tooth fairy to just make it all go away?

War's end. Thank goodness. They don't always end the way you want them to which can be pretty disappointing but ending a war with a less than desirable peace is often better than letting a war drag on and getting a similar or worse peace years later. We should have learned that lesson with Afghanistan.
I do categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. Every argument you're making in favor of allowing Russia to keep territory in the name of "pragmatic reality" is an argument that could have been made (and essentially was made) in favor of the 1938 Munich Agreement. You know, the one that Britain and France thought was going to achieve peace in Europe. Because Hitler said he didn't want any more territory beyond the Sudetenland. Scout's honor.

I would rather continue a fairly small war now than move us closer to a big war later. The fact has always been, and remains, that there is only one party - the aggressor - who has the power to unilaterally stop this war and refuses to. The only way to stop the aggression, and to deter future aggression, is to avoid an outcome where aggression is rewarded. Absolutely we should keep sending American weapons into Ukraine if Russia - the party who can stop this at any time - refuses to withdraw. If we want to maintain a world order that makes clear that attempting to increase your country's territory though force is unacceptable, you have to enforce that with more than words. The question of boots on the ground is obviously much tricker because of a justified fear of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But if you take that option off the table entirely you lose part of your deterrence factor.
 
I do categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. Every argument you're making in favor of allowing Russia to keep territory in the name of "pragmatic reality" is an argument that could have been made (and essentially was made) in favor of the 1938 Munich Agreement. You know, the one that Britain and France thought was going to achieve peace in Europe. Because Hitler said he didn't want any more territory beyond the Sudetenland. Scout's honor.

I would rather continue a fairly small war now than move us closer to a big war later. The fact has always been, and remains, that there is only one party - the aggressor - who has the power to unilaterally stop this war and refuses to. The only way to stop the aggression, and to deter future aggression, is to avoid an outcome where aggression is rewarded. Absolutely we should keep sending American weapons into Ukraine if Russia - the party who can stop this at any time - refuses to withdraw. If we want to maintain a world order that makes clear that attempting to increase your country's territory though force is unacceptable, you have to enforce that with more than words. The question of boots on the ground is obviously much tricker because of a justified fear of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But if you take that option off the table entirely you lose part of your deterrence factor.
So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?
 
So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?
That what Trump wants to do would make it even easier for Russia to keep expanding its territorial gains.
 
So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?
Intentionally misreading other’s plainly articulated perspectives is why your opinion holds zero weight. Ie your troll game needs to evolve. Do better.
 
That what Trump wants to do would make it even easier for Russia to keep expanding its territorial gains.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Trump is some diplomatic Mastermind. I'm not defending him but I'm also asking what people would do to get Ukrainian territory back from Russia. People calling reality appeasement should provide an alternative course of action and be ready to defend it.

I do think Trump's policy is closer to what's going to keep Russia from expanding their territory claims and is closer to what we're eventually going to get. I also wouldn't trust Putin's word on anything so the guarantee has to be more than just a treaty.

I think the Europeans are closest: Give Putin what he already has, or maybe do a little horse trading with the small amount of land Ukraine has in Russia. Put European boots on the ground but Ukraine is not a NATO member.
 
Intentionally misreading other’s plainly articulated perspectives is why your opinion holds zero weight. Ie your troll game needs to evolve. Do better.
Really? Then you tell me what's different in his proposal then what we've been doing for the last few years. Because I'm not seeing it.
 
So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?
I'd actually propose to increase our military support moreso than keep it the same. And we I say "our" I mean NATO collectively. I have no problem with Trump appropriately prodding the European members of NATO to increase their own commitment. I do have a problem with him taking Russia's side against our ally. And I do have a problem with him not acknowledging the reality that Russia started this war and can stop it at any time. Keeping the opprobrium directed squarely at Russia - rather than playing into Russian propaganda by victim-blaming Ukraine and our own allies - will keep the pressure on Russia high. Trump coming in and siding with Putin is giving Russia breathing room both politically and militarily that will help it continue the war rather than stopping it. Which Russia can do at any time.

Again: appeasement of an autocracy s a fundamentally self-defeating strategy. it has been proven over and over again. You either stand up firmly to autocracy, or its ambitions and territorial violations will simply grow until a much larger and more costly war is inevitable. Even leaving aside the point that turning a blind eye to Russian aggression will embolden Chinese aggression.
 
But it does in China and India and other parts of the world. Europe’s purchases would be replaced to the point Russia can wait out Ukraine. The only way any of it works is to stop ALL sales of Russian oil and gas.
I am going to count my response as a clear loss to you. Because, in your seven point response, no where did you mention China and India. In five of the points you clearly pointed to what Europe was doing. So now that I have pointed out that the current year fossil fuels sales no longer apply to Europe, then you shift the goal posts.
 
Just wondering: We gave Israel 20 Billion or more last year to fund their latest bombing. Which is incidental to every time they have a blow up to what we cough up. Not to mention for decades we give them upward to 5 billion a year.

Israel is never going to win. Which is the argument about Ukraine. So why the double standard?
 
I'd actually propose to increase our military support moreso than keep it the same. And we I say "our" I mean NATO collectively. I have no problem with Trump appropriately prodding the European members of NATO to increase their own commitment. I do have a problem with him taking Russia's side against our ally. And I do have a problem with him not acknowledging the reality that Russia started this war and can stop it at any time. Keeping the opprobrium directed squarely at Russia - rather than playing into Russian propaganda by victim-blaming Ukraine and our own allies - will keep the pressure on Russia high. Trump coming in and siding with Putin is giving Russia breathing room both politically and militarily that will help it continue the war rather than stopping it. Which Russia can do at any time.

Again: appeasement of an autocracy s a fundamentally self-defeating strategy. it has been proven over and over again. You either stand up firmly to autocracy, or its ambitions and territorial violations will simply grow until a much larger and more costly war is inevitable. Even leaving aside the point that turning a blind eye to Russian aggression will embolden Chinese aggression.
Okay. So you want to be sure that Trump is definitely blaming Russia which I don't think would really lead to what you're hoping for but would certainly help us diplomatically with some other allies.

You're also proposing more military spending for Ukraine. Certainly an option. The downside is it may not work and Ukraine may fall anyway and it may lead to a wider war.

It's definitely a concrete proposal. Not sure if it'll work but better than some of these folks.
 
Back
Top