Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 74K
  • Politics 
I'm going to point out something I mentioned a little more then two weeks ago when it became obvious that Trump was tilting to Russia and the talks were about to begin in Saudi Arabi. There was a great deal of stress among Ukraine supporters that it could mean the end for Ukraine.

I simply said we would quickly know the true state of the war by how quickly Zelensky gave in. Well he didn't, which suggests the war may be going better for Ukraine then we comprehend.

The true state of the war is a relevant point with all this talk about Ukraine being a lost cause.
 
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.
WWIII, not WWII
 
How about this as an idea: use the frozen Russian assets to reimburse the United States, if we must be reimbursed. And the rest to rebuild Ukraine (which we will be paying for one way or another, at least in part).

That's the biggest crime here from Trump. Well, the lack of intelligence sharing. But his moves to lift sanctions and unfreeze assets are ridiculous.
 
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.
This is not correct. Appeasement is the unwillingness to make the aggressor fight for what it wants. Appeasement was "if we don't fight Hitler for some territory, he won't want to fight for the rest."

Now, we don't have to recognize the captured territory as belonging to Russia. If Russia annexes it, we don't have to respect that. That's basically the deal in the occupied territories in Israel. Israel took the Golan Height and the West Bank, and they control it. They think of it as their territory. We do not. (this principle doesn't really depend on who is the aggressor so I'm not going in any direction down that road).

But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic, which is why it's not a principle ensconced anywhere in any treaty.
 
This is not correct. Appeasement is the unwillingness to make the aggressor fight for what it wants. Appeasement was "if we don't fight Hitler for some territory, he won't want to fight for the rest."

Now, we don't have to recognize the captured territory as belonging to Russia. If Russia annexes it, we don't have to respect that. That's basically the deal in the occupied territories in Israel. Israel took the Golan Height and the West Bank, and they control it. They think of it as their territory. We do not. (this principle doesn't really depend on who is the aggressor so I'm not going in any direction down that road).

But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic, which is why it's not a principle ensconced anywhere in any treaty.
Appeasement to end conflict versus appeasement to avoid conflict may not be exactly the same thing, but it's still appeasement. Pressing Ukraine to cede its sovereign territory to Russia as part of a peace deal is appeasement regardless of whether Russia is currently occupying the territory by force.

We don't have to keep fighting, or to do anything. But giving international recognition to Russia having a rightful claim on a portion of Ukraine that it took by force and without justification s going to embolden every autocratic power with designs on adding territory (chiefly Russia and China). Everyone recognizes that the majority of human history has involved civilizations and countries constantly attacking each other, capturing territory, ceding territory by treaty, etc. But the entire point of the post-WWII order is supposed to be that the international community agrees we're not going to do that anymore. That we've moved past that into a new age of peace and stability where national borders will no longer be changed through external force. Giving up that order and returning to an age of imperialism and territorial aggression is no small thing to do. Especially given the manpower and level of weaponry available to the potential combatants in modern imperialist wars. Even without considering the possibility of nuclear war, it's terrifying.

The world has been relatively peaceful (relative to the majority of human history - I recognize that plenty of wars and atrocities have still occurred in the post-WWII era) for the last few decades. We've essentially been living under the umbrella created by a stable, US-led world order for several decades. We've been living under that umbrella for so long that people have forgotten what the rain feels like, so they don't understand why we need the umbrella. Going back to an age where the international community does not strongly reject the very concept of imperialist aggression will have potentially disastrous consequences for us all.
 
Appeasement to end conflict versus appeasement to avoid conflict may not be exactly the same thing, but it's still appeasement. Pressing Ukraine to cede its sovereign territory to Russia as part of a peace deal is appeasement regardless of whether Russia is currently occupying the territory by force.

We don't have to keep fighting, or to do anything. But giving international recognition to Russia having a rightful claim on a portion of Ukraine that it took by force and without justification s going to embolden every autocratic power with designs on adding territory (chiefly Russia and China). Everyone recognizes that the majority of human history has involved civilizations and countries constantly attacking each other, capturing territory, ceding territory by treaty, etc. But the entire point of the post-WWII order is supposed to be that the international community agrees we're not going to do that anymore. That we've moved past that into a new age of peace and stability where national borders will no longer be changed through external force. Giving up that order and returning to an age of imperialism and territorial aggression is no small thing to do. Especially given the manpower and level of weaponry available to the potential combatants in modern imperialist wars. Even without considering the possibility of nuclear war, it's terrifying.

The world has been relatively peaceful (relative to the majority of human history - I recognize that plenty of wars and atrocities have still occurred in the post-WWII era) for the last few decades. We've essentially been living under the umbrella created by a stable, US-led world order for several decades. We've been living under that umbrella for so long that people have forgotten what the rain feels like, so they don't understand why we need the umbrella. Going back to an age where the international community does not strongly reject the very concept of imperialist aggression will have potentially disastrous consequences for us all.
This is starting to sound a lot like LBJ's justification for escalating in Vietnam, with a bit of WWI strategy thrown in.

There are many ways to combat aggression other than sending soldiers into meat grinders for some abstract principle of defending artificial boundaries.

I do not think the West's response to the Ukraine invasion, even if we were to concede all that territory right now, would embolden anyone. Russia has paid an incredibly steep price for its invasion. It was absolutely 100% not worth it. They have decimated their population; their economy remains utterly in tatters (regardless of oil revenue, which is not that significant), and the import restrictions have taken a toll.

We should not "recognize" the territory taken. We should not lift sanctions on Russia. We should not unfreeze Russian assets. Those are signs of strong rejection of imperialist aggression. Continuing to fight until the enemy is completely defeated is simply not realistic and it doesn't make much sense when you drill down.
 
That what Trump wants to do would make it even easier for Russia to keep expanding its territorial gains.
You bitch, you moan, you hurl personal attacks but what you and wayne and boford, etc never do is offer your solution. Not some general pie in the sky "don't appease russia" bullshit.

If you don't accept russia keeping territorial gains:

How do you get russia out?
Who is going to use the weapons we send? Ukraine is about out of soldiers. Russia has more than ukraine
Why would sending them more weapons now all of a sudden work?
How long would you keep sending weapons to ukraine? 1 yr? 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 20 yrs?
 
This is not correct. Appeasement is the unwillingness to make the aggressor fight for what it wants. Appeasement was "if we don't fight Hitler for some territory, he won't want to fight for the rest."

Now, we don't have to recognize the captured territory as belonging to Russia. If Russia annexes it, we don't have to respect that. That's basically the deal in the occupied territories in Israel. Israel took the Golan Height and the West Bank, and they control it. They think of it as their territory. We do not. (this principle doesn't really depend on who is the aggressor so I'm not going in any direction down that road).

But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic, which is why it's not a principle ensconced anywhere in any treaty.
"But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic..."

I completely agree with this. Why is it unrealistic?
 
You bitch, you moan, you hurl personal attacks but what you and wayne and boford, etc never do is offer your solution. Not some general pie in the sky "don't appease russia" bullshit.

If you don't accept russia keeping territorial gains:

How do you get russia out?
Who is going to use the weapons we send? Ukraine is about out of soldiers. Russia has more than ukraine
Why would sending them more weapons now all of a sudden work?
How long would you keep sending weapons to ukraine? 1 yr? 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 20 yrs?
There are several strategies discussed within the last 20 posts on this thread. You even responded to one of them. ANY of them would be immensely better than the appeasement Trump is proposing.
 
You bitch, you moan, you hurl personal attacks but what you and wayne and boford, etc never do is offer your solution. Not some general pie in the sky "don't appease russia" bullshit.

If you don't accept russia keeping territorial gains:

How do you get russia out?
Who is going to use the weapons we send? Ukraine is about out of soldiers. Russia has more than ukraine
Why would sending them more weapons now all of a sudden work?
How long would you keep sending weapons to ukraine? 1 yr? 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 20 yrs?
20 years is fine by me. The correct answer is as long as Ukraine wants to. It doesn't cost us much and it costs Russia dearly. It's been the best bang for the buck the US has gotten in my lifetime and I was born when Truman was president.
 

Kellogg is right. It's all to force ukraine into peace discussions. Its showing him what he would face if he doesn't because trump has told him he can go it alone, or with europe
Appeasement to end conflict versus appeasement to avoid conflict may not be exactly the same thing, but it's still appeasement. Pressing Ukraine to cede its sovereign territory to Russia as part of a peace deal is appeasement regardless of whether Russia is currently occupying the territory by force.

We don't have to keep fighting, or to do anything. But giving international recognition to Russia having a rightful claim on a portion of Ukraine that it took by force and without justification s going to embolden every autocratic power with designs on adding territory (chiefly Russia and China). Everyone recognizes that the majority of human history has involved civilizations and countries constantly attacking each other, capturing territory, ceding territory by treaty, etc. But the entire point of the post-WWII order is supposed to be that the international community agrees we're not going to do that anymore. That we've moved past that into a new age of peace and stability where national borders will no longer be changed through external force. Giving up that order and returning to an age of imperialism and territorial aggression is no small thing to do. Especially given the manpower and level of weaponry available to the potential combatants in modern imperialist wars. Even without considering the possibility of nuclear war, it's terrifying.

The world has been relatively peaceful (relative to the majority of human history - I recognize that plenty of wars and atrocities have still occurred in the post-WWII era) for the last few decades. We've essentially been living under the umbrella created by a stable, US-led world order for several decades. We've been living under that umbrella for so long that people have forgotten what the rain feels like, so they don't understand why we need the umbrella. Going back to an age where the international community does not strongly reject the very concept of imperialist aggression will have potentially disastrous consequences for us all.
Why now the unfettered commitment to keep sending, or actually increase weapons shipments? Where were the cries when Crimea was invaded and we sent blankets and MREs. Why no opposition to appeasement then?
 
20 years is fine by me. The correct answer is as long as Ukraine wants to. It doesn't cost us much and it costs Russia dearly. It's been the best bang for the buck the US has gotten in my lifetime and I was born when Truman was president.
You answered one of the questions. Appreciated. How about the others?
 
You bitch, you moan, you hurl personal attacks but what you and wayne and boford, etc never do is offer your solution. Not some general pie in the sky "don't appease russia" bullshit.

If you don't accept russia keeping territorial gains:

How do you get russia out?
Who is going to use the weapons we send? Ukraine is about out of soldiers. Russia has more than ukraine
Why would sending them more weapons now all of a sudden work?
How long would you keep sending weapons to ukraine? 1 yr? 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 20 yrs?
Lmfao you stupid motherfucker, every single one of us has posted our ideas for solutions many times on this thread. You are either too functionally illiterate to understand them, or you don’t like them. Ain’t our problem, either way. Learn to fucking read, you petulant little slut!
 
This is starting to sound a lot like LBJ's justification for escalating in Vietnam, with a bit of WWI strategy thrown in.

There are many ways to combat aggression other than sending soldiers into meat grinders for some abstract principle of defending artificial boundaries.

I do not think the West's response to the Ukraine invasion, even if we were to concede all that territory right now, would embolden anyone. Russia has paid an incredibly steep price for its invasion. It was absolutely 100% not worth it. They have decimated their population; their economy remains utterly in tatters (regardless of oil revenue, which is not that significant), and the import restrictions have taken a toll.

We should not "recognize" the territory taken. We should not lift sanctions on Russia. We should not unfreeze Russian assets. Those are signs of strong rejection of imperialist aggression. Continuing to fight until the enemy is completely defeated is simply not realistic and it doesn't make much sense when you drill down.
It's more like the logic the US used in arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan than the logic we used in Vietnam. As for WWI, that was the result of what happened when the great powers of the world sought to carve up the world through imperialism and make every corner of it part of their empires. That is what I'm trying to avoid returning to.

If we sign on to/preside over a peace treaty that involves Ukraine recognizing that the territory Russia has taken is now part of Russia, how does that not constitute "recognizing" that Russia now owns that territory? And if we make peace on the posture that Trump is espousing - where the war is Ukraine's fault and not Russia's - how is that going to make China think there's any chance of the US intervening militarily if they want to take Taiwan?

And I guess we just disagree about what "Continuing to fight until the enemy is completely defeated" means. I'm not suggesting we have to put Russia to the sword and capture Moscow to force an unconditional surrender. Just back Ukraine up when it says there can be no peace until Russia leaves Ukrainian soil. Make clear that it is Russia, and only Russia, who is prolonging this war by refusing to leave. Again, sometimes you have to be willing to maintain your resolve in a smaller war to avoid a bigger one. Putin is counting on Ukraine and the West lacking the resolve to stay in the fight. Trump is giving him exactly what he wants. Anyone who thinks Putin's territorial ambitions will end after a treaty that recognizes Russian sovereignty over a portion of Ukraine is a fool.
 
Just making sure that everyone else sees that calla can’t keep my name out of his mouth even when I’m not part of the conversation! This is the cheapest fucking real estate investment I’ll ever have in my entire life, that space between his ears.

Calla, brother, I’m not going to fuck you. Let it go, hoss!
 
Lmfao you stupid motherfucker, every single one of us has posted our ideas for solutions many times on this thread. You are either too functionally illiterate to understand them, or you don’t like them. Ain’t our problem, either way. Learn to fucking read, you petulant little slut!
Then repost yours and answer the questions. I don't remember reading how you would propose to do the things in the questions posed.
 
Back
Top