Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

[finesse]

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.

Almost exactly this. I don't want our people to die for them or them to die for us unless it's at the behest of NATO involvement, which I hope never happens. I'm fine with providing them materiel and intelligence as long as they want to fight and willing to support them in negotiations. That said, I'm no great admirer of Ukraine or their history. This is purely pragmatic for me. We're better off supporting them and keeping sanctions on Russia.

 

[TarSpiel]

Trump 'planning to revoke legal status of 240,000 Ukrainian refugees' - key Ukraine developments

The planned rollback of protections for Ukrainians was reportedly underway before Trump publicly feuded with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week.

uk.news.yahoo.com

Trump 'planning to revoke legal status of 240,000 Ukrainian refugees' - key Ukraine developments​

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

 

[Bobfripp]

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

Trump is a sick man.

 

[Callatoroy]

First of all, there was plenty of criticism at the time that the US/international response should have been harsher. But at least the US government at the time universally condemned the action by the Russians. it did not pressure the Ukrainian government to "recognize reality" and formally cede Crimea to Russia. Like the Trump admin is doing now. 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.

Second of all, what happened in Crimea in 2014 was far different than what happened in 2022. It was largely a bloodless, Russian-backed coup. There was little to no immediate fighting. Ukraine did not send its own military back in to try to take Crimea. If they had chosen to do that, I certainly hope we would have supported them politically and with military aid as we did when Russia invaded in 2022.

Criticism and condemnation means nothing. Russia invaded. The US through its actions appeased russia and russia holds that territory today. We did nothing to deter russia from invading the 2nd time. That is fact. I don't know for sure what trump is proposing but my guess is russia keeps territorial gains and no nato membership for ukraine. However, ukraine would keep 4/5ths of its territory. What if putin refuses to withdraw from ukraine and give up the territory it gained? What is the response given ukraine is running out of manpower?

Trump already knows putin wants to strike a deal. Its Zel who isn't ready for an immediate ceasefire to carry out negotiations so trump is strongarming him as you put it. Its the only way to get Zel to the table immediately.

 

[superrific]

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.

I don't care if Putin sees the peacekeepers as an escalation. Is he going to continue to fight? Is his military in any shape to fight NATO, even without the US? No. He has nukes. That's all.

And if Putin is willing to use his nukes as leverage to take all of Eastern Europe -- well, that's a fucking problem, isn't it, one with no clear answer. MAD was always based on the assumption that no mad person would be at the helm. Is Putin mad? Is he ready to blow up the world (and would his enablers) to achieve his ambitions? I don't know the answer to that.

Here's a test. You tell me what we should do. Putin nukes Seattle and tells us that if we retaliate, he will send the whole arsenal. Should we send our nukes? Should we blow up the world and eliminate the species? If you were president, would you do that? Really? REALLY? We need to keep up appearances that we would, but would we? If you can't acknowledge the problem here, then I don't think you're thinking seriously. It's a problem South Korea has faced, by the way, in dealing with Kim Jong Un. By and large, they have chosen economic sanctions, not a military response.

One way of addressing the issue would be to make a response automatic. I'm in favor of a (completely realistic and thought experiment only) policy by which all nations would give up their nukes and put them under the control of a limited AI system that has only one job: if any country invades another, the AI system will nuke them. Automatically. The system can't be bluffed. I bet that would deter wars, a lot more effectively than what we have now. Obviously this isn't a serious proposal for a number of reasons, but within a set of assumptions that could in theory hold but not in practice, I think it's clearly optimal.

All right -- so automatic response would be good, but infeasible. Back to the Seattle problem. You're president, Putin nukes Seattle, and you are weighing your response. Go.

 

[Callatoroy]

You better hop off my nuts long enough to get your lazy ass to reading back through 83 pages if you want an answer.

no longer want your response. I'd get a more intelligent response from my neighbors hamster

 

[superrific]

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

They cannot be deported to Ukraine under US law. It is illegal to refoul any person to their country if that country cannot guarantee their safety (I'm paraphrasing).

They might be deportable, but they can't be deported until the situation improves.

 

[altmin]

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

The cruelty is always the point.

 

[CFordUNC]

no longer want your response. I'd get a more intelligent response from my neighbors hamster

Hey, look everyone! The very weird, very bizarre, very angry insecure little man who is psychotically obsessed with me now no longer wants my response that he was down on his knees begging for not even an hour ago! Coincidentally, it comes right after I decide to charitably humor him and regurgitate much of what I’ve already said on the preceding 83 pages of this thread.

Calla, get some help, boss man! Either psychologically, or at least get some better insults. You are boring. My two-year-old toddler somehow manages to shit talk me better than you when I tell him no to ice cream after dinner!

 

[rodoheel]

They cannot be deported to Ukraine under US law. It is illegal to refoul any person to their country if that country cannot guarantee their safety (I'm paraphrasing).

They might be deportable, but they can't be deported until the situation improves.

Trump doesn't know or care about whatever that law is. Can the courts stop him quickly enough?

 

[superrific]

Trump doesn't know or care about whatever that law is. Can the courts stop him quickly enough?

Yes

 

[Callatoroy]

Ok, I’ll play.

How do you get russia out?

(1) You keep the pressure on them with new weapons and technologies. (2) I don’t know if they’ll ever be forced out of a place like Crimea, but I 100% guarantee they won’t be if Trump ratifies Russia’s control of those areas.

Who is going to use the weapons we send? Ukraine is about out of soldiers. Russia has more than ukraine

Ukraine can figure that out. Russia is using freaking North Koreans. After emptying their prisons. It’s not like Russia has piles of storm troopers to keep throwing in the breach.

Why would sending them more weapons now all of a sudden work?

It’s been working all along. The question is why would it not work now?

How long would you keep sending weapons to ukraine? 1 yr? 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 20 yrs?

Until Ukraine wants to quit.

Now a question for you —

Why in the hell would Putin not keep acquiring territory if Trump ratifies what he’s done to Ukraine?

And don’t give me bullshit about attacking US companies. Putin couldn’t give a rat’s ass about US companies in countries he wants to conquer. And Trump won’t do a thing about it when a bunch of American miners get hit by a Russian missile. Assuming the miners were there in the first place, which they won’t be because the whole scheme is batshit crazy.

Thank you for the response.

Sending in weapons has only worked to keep russia somewhat in a stalemate. They were able to achieve some gains. Our weapons haven't resulted in ukraine pushing russia back into its original boundaries. More weapons will slow russia down, but it won't stop them and it certainly won't allow ukraine to push russia backwards.

Ukraine wants to quit now but zel wants something he will NEVER have. He can't see it but trump does. More weapons means ukraine can hold out longer but inevitably will run out of troops and russia will end up taking what it wants. Only way to stop them is boots on the ground and I don't think pubs or dems want that.

The minerals in ukraine are spread out over a large area. The US would have mines throughout ukraine and thousands of people. The US presence would be considerable. Completely disagree that putin wouldn't hesitate to send a missle into a US mine killing hundreds of people. That is an act of war that given his beat up economy and military he can't afford to wage with the US. The pressure on trump to respond would be tremendous and he would have no recourse but to act. The initial threat isn't during trump's term if as you guys claim they are such buddies. Its after he is gone and another perceived weak president is in place. But by that time a well established US presence is in place and ukraine's rebuilding is well under way. By the US providing the technology ukraine will have money to purchase more sophisticated weapons and build a more technologically advanced military. I doubt russia wants to go another round with ukraine anytime soon given the issues it had this time. There is absolutely nothing crazy about mining ukraine's minerals as it makes us less dependent on china. That is a stated goal of the US. The longer this war goes on the less territory ukraine will have. putin has all the leverage. ukraines only hope is to align with the US on the mineral rights deal.

 

[Callatoroy]

Hey, look everyone! The very weird, very bizarre, very angry insecure little man who is psychotically obsessed with me now no longer wants my response that he was down on his knees begging for not even an hour ago! Coincidentally, it comes right after I decide to charitably humor him and regurgitate much of what I’ve already said on the preceding 83 pages of this thread.

Calla, get some help, boss man! Either psychologically, or at least get some better insults. You are boring. My two-year-old toddler somehow manages to shit talk me better than you when I tell him no to ice cream after dinner!

You are looking like the one obsessed. I'm through with you. you are dismissed. skedaddle. vamoose.

 

[rodoheel]

Criticism and condemnation means nothing. Russia invaded. The US through its actions appeased russia and russia holds that territory today. We did nothing to deter russia from invading the 2nd time. That is fact. I don't know for sure what trump is proposing but my guess is russia keeps territorial gains and no nato membership for ukraine. However, ukraine would keep 4/5ths of its territory. What if putin refuses to withdraw from ukraine and give up the territory it gained? What is the response given ukraine is running out of manpower?

Trump already knows putin wants to strike a deal. Its Zel who isn't ready for an immediate ceasefire to carry out negotiations so trump is strongarming him as you put it. Its the only way to get Zel to the table immediately.

I don't think you understand what "appeasement" means. The US in no way condoned, agreed with, or acknowledged the legitimacy of Russia's occupation of Crimea. In fact it condemned it and sanctioned Russia. it is fair to argue about whether that response was strong enough. But it's not "appeasement."

Putin only wants a deal that is favorable to him. He isn't ready to make peace on any terms. If he was he would withdraw his troops. We could have a ceasefire right this second if Putin did that. But Putin won't do that. Putin only wants to come to the table because he thinks Trump is going to hand him what he wants. He isn't prepared to actually give up anything. This idea that Putin is the reasonable one ready to negotiate while Zelenskyy is being unreasonable is insane. If Putin says he isn't willing to withdraw troops, Trump should be leaning on him the way he is Zelenskyy. But he's not. Why? if Putin is the reasonable one why isn't he willing to withdraw his troops? If Trump wants to be a big businessman and Do Deals in Russia why doesn't he just make those deals contingent on Russia withdrawing troops?

 

[Callatoroy]

Jeez. Glad you weren’t in Valley Forge.

little different. Valley Forge was us fighting for our independence. Not a country thousands of miles away and not a member of nato.

 

[CFordUNC]

You are looking like the one obsessed. I'm through with you. you are dismissed. skedaddle. vamoose.

You ain’t through with shit, bitch. You can’t keep my dick…sorry, my name…out of your mouth even when I’m not part of the conversation. See you around the next your humiliation fetish gets the best of you and you want to crawl up my asscrack!

 

[BlooVooDoo]

no longer want your response. I'd get a more intelligent response from my neighbors hamster

Equal footing.

 

[Callatoroy]

I don't think you understand what "appeasement" means. The US in no way condoned, agreed with, or acknowledged the legitimacy of Russia's occupation of Crimea. In fact it condemned it and sanctioned Russia. it is fair to argue about whether that response was strong enough. But it's not "appeasement."

Putin only wants a deal that is favorable to him. He isn't ready to make peace on any terms. If he was he would withdraw his troops. We could have a ceasefire right this second if Putin did that. But Putin won't do that. Putin only wants to come to the table because he thinks Trump is going to hand him what he wants. He isn't prepared to actually give up anything. This idea that Putin is the reasonable one ready to negotiate while Zelenskyy is being unreasonable is insane. If Putin says he isn't willing to withdraw troops, Trump should be leaning on him the way he is Zelenskyy. But he's not. Why? if Putin is the reasonable one why isn't he willing to withdraw his troops? If Trump wants to be a big businessman and Do Deals in Russia why doesn't he just make those deals contingent on Russia withdrawing troops?

Condemnations and ineffective sanctions are worthless and not worth the paper written on in this type of situation. The only thing that is real is did russia take it and do they still have it. Yes and yes. Playing semantics with the word appeasement doesn't make any difference in the reality of today. Our actions amounted to almost nothing and I'm sure we would likely agree on how that could have been handled differently.

If it ended today with russia keeping its gains, in the eyes of the world, who won? Mighty russia with a military 4 times what ukraine had but got its ass kicked and its military depleted. Or ukraine with the little engine that could attitude? putin suffers worldwide embarrassment. I read an AP article that said under no terms would putin ever cede the ground it has taken because to do so would be total humiliation. I believe that. He would use battlefield nukes before pulling out altogether.

 

[superrific]

The US would have mines throughout ukraine and thousands of people. The US presence would be considerable.

Let me put it as simply as I can: no American company is going to enter Ukraine to be the security guarantee.

They will invest in Ukraine with a security guarantee already in place. Nobody is going to be the canary in the coal mine.

What would happen if Russian troops started to mass on the border is what has happened every single time there has been a potential war brewing. The mining companies will withdraw their people.

 

[Callatoroy]

You ain’t through with shit, bitch. You can’t keep my dick…sorry, my name…out of your mouth even when I’m not part of the conversation. See you around the next your humiliation fetish gets the best of you and you want to crawl up my asscrack!

you still here?