Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 35K
  • Politics 
finesse said:
All covered by as long as Ukraine wants to. They are on the ground and can judge what they can field and what they can tolerate.

I care less about a solution than I do about being a PITA to Russia. I would prefer that Russia retreats. The only thing I don't want to see is us aiding and abetting Putin. He's a slime and been a sworn enemy since he joined the KGB in 1975.
Click to expand...
Nothing more than that. And my comment isn't intended to insult you. Ukraine can't wage war much longer. What then? putin likely to gain more territory.
 
Callatoroy said:
Nothing more than that. And my comment isn't intended to insult you. Ukraine can't wage war much longer. What then? putin likely to gain more territory.
Click to expand...
That's a decision for Ukraine to make.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of the makeup of the Russian army? They are almost wholly draftees, there is almost no professional noncom presence and damned little institutional memory. There's a reason that they have had such a shitty performance in the field.
 
Callatoroy said:
Nothing more than that. And my comment isn't intended to insult you. Ukraine can't wage war much longer. What then? putin likely to gain more territory.
Click to expand...
I only hear this assertion that Ukraine can't continue from people who back Trump. Why is it that Ukraine doesn't see it that way and nor do their European neighbors?
 
rodoheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
1. I said WWI tactics, not geostrategy. As I understand it, the battle lines are pretty firm right now, like in WWI. Nobody is able to gain much either way, because it's the modern equivalent of trench warfare.

2. You're losing an argument to gt and calla with the refusal to acknowledge that sometimes folding is better than throwing good money after bad. The question you keep evading, because you can't answer it, is "how do you dislodge Russia?" And if you can't answer that question, then the position of "but we must fight until we have expelled them" makes no sense. No matter how many times you jump in the air, even if you jump your highest and strongest, you are not going to fly.

3. Let's be clear about what I'm not saying:

a. admit that Ukraine was the aggressor. That's obviously ridiculous and has no place.
b. broadcast that we're trying to prevent Ukraine from fighting. That's obviously an intent to load the deck in Russia's favor. Don't do that.
c. Internationally recognize the territory as part of Russia. That Russia controls the territory is obvious. But international recognition is usually the touchstone for all territorial concepts. If a bunch of sovereign citizens take over a wildlife refuge and declare themselves an independent country, and the UN takes a vote of member states declaring the refuge to be an independent country, then it is. Then when the US takes back the refuge, we will be seen as occupying a sovereign nation. It doesn't really matter that the claim is ridiculous -- except in the sense that a ridiculous claim like that would never get international backing.

4. What does it mean to not recognize the territory? Well, several things. It means we can continue to isolate Russia. They can live with sanctions forever if that's what they want to do, but we won't lift the sanctions until they leave (and if Trump lifts them, his successor can reimpose them). No membership in G7. Exclusions of Russian athletes from Olympic Games. So on and so forth. Those won't immediately cause Russia to leave, but it severely raises the cost of an invasion.

Is it as good as repelling the invasion? It is not. But the reality is that repelling the invasion is incredibly costly, not guaranteed to work, and we can get a similar bang with many fewer bucks.

We should continue to support Ukraine for as long as Ukraine wants to fight. We surely shouldn't be shutting down intelligence sharing. But insisting that it's war without end unless Russia retreats seems to me like a boxer, having been kneed in the balls and then, when doubled over, gets pummeled with three uppercuts and goes down insisting on fighting to the end to avoid rewarding the low blow. It's great in theory, but in reality it's just going to lead to the boxer getting pummeled some more.

5. I'm not expressing any opinion right now on the specific situation on the ground in Ukraine. I don't know it. I'm just commenting on the general theory and approach.
 
rodoheel said:
Rather than using his supposed influence with Putin to pressure Putin to end the war, Trump is pressuring Ukraine to sign away its sovereign territory to Russia. Did any previous US administration do that? That is the appeasement. Trump choosing to strongarm Zelenskyy into peace on terms Ukraine does not want, instead of trying to pressure Putin, tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true. This is a more focused assessment than your earlier one. Pressuring Ukraine to accede to Russia's demands is appeasement.
 
The territories Russia illegally “annexed” and occupied in 2022 are about 20% of Ukraine’s total land, not even counting Crimea, which Putin annexed (also illegally) in 2014. Allowing Putin to keep this land will only encourage him to come for more once his forces are restocked. Which wouldn't take as long as many of you think... especially if the United States plays a role in lifting sanctions on Russia. And if Trump is allowed to continue, the United States will not be in position to help Ukraine when he returns.

IMHO, there is no concession on land. Russia needs to GTFO of Ukraine. There is no concession on NATO. Russia doesn't decide who joins NATO.

Russia's economy is in TROUBLE. Now is not the time to cow tail to Russia. The United States needs to ramp up their efforts to supply Zelensky and prepare to back the Ukraine for as long as they wish to fight for their country. Europe CLEARY agrees. We should stand with our allies.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
1. I said WWI tactics, not geostrategy. As I understand it, the battle lines are pretty firm right now, like in WWI. Nobody is able to gain much either way, because it's the modern equivalent of trench warfare.

2. You're losing an argument to gt and calla with the refusal to acknowledge that sometimes folding is better than throwing good money after bad. The question you keep evading, because you can't answer it, is "how do you dislodge Russia?" And if you can't answer that question, then the position of "but we must fight until we have expelled them" makes no sense. No matter how many times you jump in the air, even if you jump your highest and strongest, you are not going to fly.

3. Let's be clear about what I'm not saying:

a. admit that Ukraine was the aggressor. That's obviously ridiculous and has no place.
b. broadcast that we're trying to prevent Ukraine from fighting. That's obviously an intent to load the deck in Russia's favor. Don't do that.
c. Internationally recognize the territory as part of Russia. That Russia controls the territory is obvious. But international recognition is usually the touchstone for all territorial concepts. If a bunch of sovereign citizens take over a wildlife refuge and declare themselves an independent country, and the UN takes a vote of member states declaring the refuge to be an independent country, then it is. Then when the US takes back the refuge, we will be seen as occupying a sovereign nation. It doesn't really matter that the claim is ridiculous -- except in the sense that a ridiculous claim like that would never get international backing.

4. What does it mean to not recognize the territory? Well, several things. It means we can continue to isolate Russia. They can live with sanctions forever if that's what they want to do, but we won't lift the sanctions until they leave (and if Trump lifts them, his successor can reimpose them). No membership in G7. Exclusions of Russian athletes from Olympic Games. So on and so forth. Those won't immediately cause Russia to leave, but it severely raises the cost of an invasion.

Is it as good as repelling the invasion? It is not. But the reality is that repelling the invasion is incredibly costly, not guaranteed to work, and we can get a similar bang with many fewer bucks.

We should continue to support Ukraine for as long as Ukraine wants to fight. We surely shouldn't be shutting down intelligence sharing. But insisting that it's war without end unless Russia retreats seems to me like a boxer, having been kneed in the balls and then, when doubled over, gets pummeled with three uppercuts and goes down insisting on fighting to the end to avoid rewarding the low blow. It's great in theory, but in reality it's just going to lead to the boxer getting pummeled some more.

5. I'm not expressing any opinion right now on the specific situation on the ground in Ukraine. I don't know it. I'm just commenting on the general theory and approach.
Click to expand...
1. I'm not refusing to acknowledge "that sometimes folding is better than throwing good money after bad." I'm arguing that folding in this particular situation is not a better result. I firmly believe that "folding" to Russia in this circumstance is a bad long-term strategic decision that will ultimately increase the chances of, and/or hasten, the larger war we are trying to avoid. Folding to Russia will not bring peace. It will not end Russia's territorial ambitions. It will simply guarantee that we are doing this same thing all over again in the future, whether in 2, 5, or 10 years, whether in Western Ukraine, or the Baltics, or wherever. And, as I have said, I think it will also make it more likely that China does the same thing in 2, 5. or 10 years, starting with Taiwan.

That is my argument. That folding in this situation is a long-term mistake akin to the one made by Great Britain and France in 1the 1930s.

2. I'm confused by this statement because it seems to be agreeing with what I'm saying: "We should continue to support Ukraine for as long as Ukraine wants to fight." Ukraine still wants to fight, right now. Ukraine is not throwing in the towel. They are not yet willing to cede their territory to Russia; at least as far as I am aware, that remains their position. I am not suggesting that if Ukraine wants to give up, we should force them to stay in the war. What we seem to agree that we should not be doing is pressuring Ukraine into a peace it does not want, or at least on terms that it does not want.
 
Callatoroy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sure. Here's the solution: STOP being Putin's bitch. He can't be trusted.
Tell him to GTFO and stop this war, which he first claimed was merely a "police action".
Put more pressure ON HIM, economically and militarily. Call his bluff.
Publicly support Ukraine for NATO membership. Cooperate with the EU to continue supporting them with ADDITIONAL economic sanctions, weapons and intel. Let them take the fight further into Russia, if necessary. Make it so costly to Putin at home that he withdraws.
This isn't a popular war for him. He's already had to put down a coup.
Remember the history that Zelensky tried to talk about when he met with Trump and Vance. There's good reason not to trust Putin.
In exchange for a Russian pledge to respect their sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in 1994.
All the warheads were transferred to Russia. The silos and delivery systems were dismantled.
Then Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and invaded Ukraine three years ago.
Ukraine isn't causing the threat of WW3. They didn't invade Russia. Russia invaded them.
Contrary to what Trump says, Ukraine didn't start this war. They have shown incredible strength, patriotism and resolve. They deserve our support. Not a slap in the face and betrayal just for Trump to get leverage.
 
dukeman92 said:
The territories Russia illegally “annexed” and occupied in 2022 are about 20% of Ukraine’s total land, not even counting Crimea, which Putin annexed (also illegally) in 2014. Allowing Putin to keep this land will only encourage him to come for more once his forces are restocked. Which wouldn't take as long as many of you think... especially if the United States plays a role in lifting sanctions on Russia. And if Trump is allowed to continue, the United States will not be in position to help Ukraine when he returns.

IMHO, there is no concession on land. Russia needs to GTFO of Ukraine. There is no concession on NATO. Russia doesn't decide who joins NATO.

Russia's economy is in TROUBLE. Now is not the time to cow tail to Russia. The United States needs to ramp up their efforts to supply Zelensky and prepare to back the Ukraine for as long as they wish to fight for their country. Europe CLEARY agrees. We should stand with our allies.
Click to expand...
Never thought I'd see the day when liberals were pro-war. I swear, you guys are starting to sound like warmongers. No Europe does not clearly agree. The Brits are talking about sending in peacekeepers. That doesn't sound like a war without end philosophy.

Surely there has to be a middle ground between complete Trump-like capitulation and an unrealistic insistence that there can be no peace until Russia leaves. Ironically, your approach would let Russia determine when the fighting ends, which means that if Putin wants to throw men into a meat grinder because he doesn't give a shit about human life, we would have to follow suit. Play defense. No more gains for Putin. Security guarantees. Etc. Insisting on unrealism is just loco.
 
This isn't some novel idea by any means but the way I see the current war is that there are three options:

1. Escalate the war by involving troops from other countries with more advanced military equipment. Of course, this risks escalation to the point of nuclear exchange. It's possible that Putin would stand down before getting to that level of escalation, but it's clearly a massive risk and not one that should be taken lightly (duh). I don't see any way for Russia to win or maintain Ukrainian territory without using nuclear weapons.

2. Stalemate, which is what was happening as of the end of the Biden presidency where neither side can really be dislodged from their positions but neither side can make further territorial advances. Would Russia eventually give up as they did with Afghanistan after nearly a decade of stalemate there? Would Ukraine be able to survive in any meaningful way? Would Putin die along the way and hypothetically free Russia to withdraw and blame it all on him?

3. Deescalation or negotiation of a ceasefire and hope that it becomes a long-term or permanent peaceful resolution. This would inevitably involve ceding territory to Russia- which is obviously not at all ideal and certainly gives them future notion that they can acquire sovereign territory by force and keep it.

Any of these solutions, IMO, depend on Russia's motivations absent Putin. If the war is Putin's personal objective- which it very well may be- rather than Russia's, then Putin's death would change everything. He is old and getting older by the day, and there have been rampant rumors that he is facing health crises.

I personally believe that the best- or the least bad- option is to essentially freeze the war in place, in terms of current territorial acquisitions. Ukraine is throwing everything at Russia and cannot move forward. They cannot take their lands back. They cannot outright win the war. Eventually they're going to run out of lives to throw at Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is really able to advance further themselves, but they do have plenty of lives, specifically North Korean lives, that they are willing and able to throw at Ukraine. In a war of attrition, Ukraine cannot win but their saving grace is that the longer the war lasts, the more and more the war is unpopular in Russia and the more desperate Putin becomes for an exit ramp. Putin can't really win this war, either, short of literally all of Western Europe abandoning Ukraine as the U.S. appears poised to do, or is at least threatening to do. If a ceasefire can be brokered in which the war essentially gets frozen in place, with Europe primarily enforcing the terms of the deal with escalation as a consequence, Russia should be effectively neutered for the short to medium term. Even absent the United States, Russia isn't in a position where they can risk escalation with Europe.

This is all what I think should/could realistically happen. What I WANT to happen is this: for the United States- and for Europe, especially Europe- to essentially give Ukraine a blank check in terms of weaponry and equipment, and enable them to permanently cripple the Russian army for what amounts to mere pennies on the dollar. We have America's and Europe's greatest historical geopolitical enemy on their knees, in a headlock, down on the mat, ready to tap out. We need to finish them.
 
rodoheel said:
1. I'm not refusing to acknowledge "that sometimes folding is better than throwing good money after bad." I'm arguing that folding in this particular situation is not a better result. I firmly believe that "folding" to Russia in this circumstance is a bad long-term strategic decision that will ultimately increase the chances of, and/or hasten, the larger war we are trying to avoid. Folding to Russia will not bring peace. It will not end Russia's territorial ambitions. It will simply guarantee that we are doing this same thing all over again in the future, whether in 2, 5, or 10 years, whether in Western Ukraine, or the Baltics, or wherever. And, as I have said, I think it will also make it more likely that China does the same thing in 2, 5. or 10 years, starting with Taiwan.

That is my argument. That folding in this situation is a long-term mistake akin to the one made by Great Britain and France in 1the 1930s.

2. I'm confused by this statement because it seems to be agreeing with what I'm saying: "We should continue to support Ukraine for as long as Ukraine wants to fight." Ukraine still wants to fight, right now. Ukraine is not throwing in the towel. They are not yet willing to cede their territory to Russia; at least as far as I am aware, that remains their position. I am not suggesting that if Ukraine wants to give up, we should force them to stay in the war. What we seem to agree that we should not be doing is pressuring Ukraine into a peace it does not want, or at least on terms that it does not want.
Click to expand...
1. These two points are in tension. If you think that folding to Russia is a bad long-term strategic decision, then you should be encouraging Ukraine to keep fighting. You should be telling them, "if you don't make peace, then Russia will be emboldened in the future."

2. There are other ways to curtail Russia's territorial ambitions. For one thing, putting Western soldiers in Ukraine as peacekeepers. For another thing, continue the economic isolation. Third, change foreign and defense policy to focus more heavily on deterrence now that Putin has shown himself to be some who will literally destroy his country for territorial ambition. Those are all sensible measures.

3. If and when China attacks Taiwan, I do not think the US will intervene militarily and, if we do, it won't make much difference. We should absolutely keep up appearances that we will, and leave open the option to do so; make China think clearly about the potential risks to its aggression. But the deterrence factor, in my view, is less military than economic. China won't invade Taiwan because that would destroy its economy. It would undo all the territorial influence it's been seeking.

4. One of Obama's big mistakes was to draw a red line in Syria that he was actually unwilling to enforce. If we say, "no territory for aggressors" but are not really prepared to fight, our bluff could well be called and then we will actually look weak.
 
superrific said:
Never thought I'd see the day when liberals were pro-war. I swear, you guys are starting to sound like warmongers. No Europe does not clearly agree. The Brits are talking about sending in peacekeepers. That doesn't sound like a war without end philosophy.

Surely there has to be a middle ground between complete Trump-like capitulation and an unrealistic insistence that there can be no peace until Russia leaves. Ironically, your approach would let Russia determine when the fighting ends, which means that if Putin wants to throw men into a meat grinder because he doesn't give a shit about human life, we would have to follow suit. Play defense. No more gains for Putin. Security guarantees. Etc. Insisting on unrealism is just loco.
Click to expand...

I am not pro war nor do I speak for all liberals. I'm pro freedom. Pro democracy. At what point would you concede a portion of the United States to Russia just to end a stalemate?

Europe clearly agrees. There have been NUMEROUS world leaders speak out in support of Ukraine since the planned mugging in the White House, that support has included all manner of promises, including "putting boots on the ground". I didn't hear a single respected world leader come out and say that Ukraine should just give up their land and end the war... other than Trump.
 
CFordUNC said:
This is all what I think should/could realistically happen. What I WANT to happen is this: for the United States- and for Europe, especially Europe- to essentially give Ukraine a blank check in terms of weaponry and equipment, and enable them to permanently cripple the Russian army for what amounts to mere pennies on the dollar. We have America's and Europe's greatest historical geopolitical enemy on their knees, in a headlock, down on the mat, ready to tap out. We need to finish them.
Click to expand...


High Five Friends GIF by Amazon Freevee
 
CFordUNC said:
Would Russia eventually give up as they did with Afghanistan after nearly a decade of stalemate there? Would Ukraine be able to survive in any meaningful way?
Click to expand...
The Soviet debacle in Afghanistan is sometimes cited as a primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. It would have had that effect even if Afghanistan had been conquered. The war was far too costly for them, and the Soviet Union (as an institution) paid the ultimate price.

The playbook should be the one we've used in the past. Cease fire for peace talks, with the option of firing the war machine up again if Russia balks. That is, press for a cease fire in order to buy us time to continue to help Ukraine build up its forces. I don't know how amenable Putin would be to that. If he won't cease fire, then so be it. War it is. But we should still be trying to mediate a peace (not cram anything down anyone's throat) and the parameters of that peace deal are just not going to include a rollback of all Russia's gains, as I understand the situation.

Personally, I blanche at your comment about how it's great for America to get the Ukrainians to fight Russia at pennies on the dollar for us. They are our proxy state now? That consideration is useful when pointing out that we're not actually losing our wealth by sending weapons their way. It's not useful, at least not to me, in suggesting that continuation of the war is good foreign policy for us just because we can find someone else to do the dying.
 
superrific said:
1. These two points are in tension. If you think that folding to Russia is a bad long-term strategic decision, then you should be encouraging Ukraine to keep fighting. You should be telling them, "if you don't make peace, then Russia will be emboldened in the future."

2. There are other ways to curtail Russia's territorial ambitions. For one thing, putting Western soldiers in Ukraine as peacekeepers. For another thing, continue the economic isolation. Third, change foreign and defense policy to focus more heavily on deterrence now that Putin has shown himself to be some who will literally destroy his country for territorial ambition. Those are all sensible measures.

3. If and when China attacks Taiwan, I do not think the US will intervene militarily and, if we do, it won't make much difference. We should absolutely keep up appearances that we will, and leave open the option to do so; make China think clearly about the potential risks to its aggression. But the deterrence factor, in my view, is less military than economic. China won't invade Taiwan because that would destroy its economy. It would undo all the territorial influence it's been seeking.

4. One of Obama's big mistakes was to draw a red line in Syria that he was actually unwilling to enforce. If we say, "no territory for aggressors" but are not really prepared to fight, our bluff could well be called and then we will actually look weak.
Click to expand...
1. I agree that there is some tension between my points, but I think it's because they serve different principles. The US's position should be "we will not allow anyone to keep territorial gains and we will back countries who are invaded, militarily if necessary, to enforce that principle." But I also think as a fundamental principle of national sovereignty that a country gets to chart its own course. I do think that ceding anything to Putin is bad and dangerous. But if Ukraine says they're not willing to fight anymore, they want peace, and they're willing to give up territory to get it, that's their choice. Should we advise them that giving into/trusting Putin is a mistake? Yes (though Zelenskyy obviously knows it already). But it's their choice, not ours. That is the difference between the modern world and the old days of imperialism: we can attempt to persuade countries into doing the things we want them to do, but we should not compel them to do things against their will.

2. First of all, putting Western troops in Ukraine (even as peacekeepers) will be seen by Putin as an escalation, not a compromise. Second of all, peacekeepers in Ukraine will do little good if Putin turns to the Baltics or somewhere else next.
 
superrific said:
Personally, I blanche at your comment about how it's great for America to get the Ukrainians to fight Russia at pennies on the dollar for us. They are our proxy state now? That consideration is useful when pointing out that we're not actually losing our wealth by sending weapons their way. It's not useful, at least not to me, in suggesting that continuation of the war is good foreign policy for us just because we can find someone else to do the dying.
Click to expand...
The Ukrainians aren't dying for us, and we should never attempt to force them to die for us. They are dying for their own country and their own principles. We can't change the fact that they are next door to Russia and we aren't.
 
dukeman92 said:
I didn't hear a single respected world leader come out and say that Ukraine should just give up their land and end the war... other than Trump.
Click to expand...
Nor I have I said that. Of course world leaders speak out in favor of Ukraine and they should. So should we. That is, we should not capitulate. Again, there's room between "no peace until the borders are restored" and Trump's giveaways.

I think my position is more in line with Europe's, but that's not really observable to any of us so it's not worth an argument. Suffice it to say, under my preferred approach, Europe would be doing what it is doing, so that doesn't distinguish our positions.

At what point would I agree to concede, say, Alaska if the Russians were fighting us? I would do it when I recognized that it was unlikely we could take it back at any reasonable cost. I wouldn't concede that Russia has the right to the territory; I would just sign a peace treaty to acknowledge Russian control (de facto). I would not rule out a retaliatory invasion later on if Russia lost the will or ability to fight. But I wouldn't throw 50K American lives away either. I write unlikely as a general word, without any specification whether that means 1% or 30% chance of winning. I don't know what probability is right, because I've not really thought about it and I don't know enough to make judgments like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top