How the Ukraine situation should end.

[Scott]

I can imagine that the British may have said the same thing to the French when those uppity Americans started rebelling and France decided to give the Americans a hand in their rebellion. Had Ukraine not antagonized many of its Russian speaking and even ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, they would have never felt the need to rebel in the first place. Had Ukraine and the west been serious about implementing the Minsk agreements in the 8 years of civil war, that could have also stopped what happened. They didn't do these things and so now they reap what they sow.

Worse, they have now lost even -more- than just the Donbass region. Another consequence of their actions. Russia is continuing to take more ground now as well. Which makes me believe that it's highly likely that the longer Ukraine takes to come to the negotiating table, the less Ukraine will have left of its territory in comparison to what it had before Russia's intervention. And I'm not even getting into all the deaths and injuries on both sides that could have been avoided had the west not discouraged Zelensky from making a deal near the start of Russia's incursion that would have left Ukraine with all the territory it had prior to Russia's military intervention. It was a deal that was arguably even better than what Stone proposed at the start of this thread in an important way, as Donbass wouldn't have even become part of the Russian federation, instead just getting more independence from Ukraine. The thing is, there's plenty of evidence that the Donbass wanted to join Russia long before Russia intervened militarily, so perhaps it was inevitable that they would eventually join Russia. I definitely think a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided though.

According to MAGA, Ukraine is the only country on the planet that is not allowed to use force to put down an insurrection within their own borders.

MAGA is such a broad label, wouldn't even know where to begin with that. What I can say is that if you mistreat your people, they're going to want to rebel. I believe that's why Americans rebelled and I believe it's why the Donbas region rebelled as well.

 

[Scott]

I can imagine that the British may have said the same thing to the French when those uppity Americans started rebelling and France decided to give the Americans a hand in their rebellion. Had Ukraine not antagonized many of its Russian speaking and even ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, they would have never felt the need to rebel in the first place. Had Ukraine and the west been serious about implementing the Minsk agreements in the 8 years of civil war, that could have also stopped what happened. They didn't do these things and so now they reap what they sow.

Worse, they have now lost even -more- than just the Donbass region. Another consequence of their actions. Russia is continuing to take more ground now as well. Which makes me believe that it's highly likely that the longer Ukraine takes to come to the negotiating table, the less Ukraine will have left of its territory in comparison to what it had before Russia's intervention. And I'm not even getting into all the deaths and injuries on both sides that could have been avoided had the west not discouraged Zelensky from making a deal near the start of Russia's incursion that would have left Ukraine with all the territory it had prior to Russia's military intervention. It was a deal that was arguably even better than what Stone proposed at the start of this thread in an important way, as Donbass wouldn't have even become part of the Russian federation, instead just getting more independence from Ukraine. The thing is, there's plenty of evidence that the Donbass wanted to join Russia long before Russia intervened militarily, so perhaps it was inevitable that they would eventually join Russia. I definitely think a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided though.

Your first mistake is thinking Putin is an honorable man who would honor an agreement.

He's been a lot more honorable on the international scene then various western countries. Here's an article of Angela Merkel admitting that the Minsk agreements were only signed to give Ukraine time to build up its army:

ANGELA MERKEL ADMITS THAT THE MINSK AGREEMENTS WERE ONLY SIGNED TO GIVE UKRAINE TIME | Donbass Insider

And ofcourse there's also the west's promise of "not one inch" east of Germany:
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Quoting the relevant portion:
**
Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.
**

In summary, it is the Russians who have learned not to trust the west's promises, and rightly so. And yet, despite all of this, they have been far more active than the west in trying to make a peace deal in Ukraine from the start of their intervention into Ukraine.

 

[Jarod]

Donbass gets folded back into the Russian Federation. New lines are drawn. Ukraine signs agreement to remain neutral with the promise of never becoming a NATO country but also remaining free and independent of Russian federation. ALL Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine immediately with "token" reparations paid to Ukraine to go towards rebuilding damage from invasion. Balance to be paid by UN, IMF, and Ukraine itself. This is actually what SHOULD have happened before a single shot was fired BTW....

If justice were a thing in this situation, Ukraine would get all territory back, including the Crimean peninsula.

Then Russia should pay billions in reparations to Ukraine and the USA.

 

[Phantasmal]

He's been a lot more honorable on the international scene then various western countries. Here's an article of Angela Merkel admitting that the Minsk agreements were only signed to give Ukraine time to build up its army:

ANGELA MERKEL ADMITS THAT THE MINSK AGREEMENTS WERE ONLY SIGNED TO GIVE UKRAINE TIME | Donbass Insider

And ofcourse there's also the west's promise of "not one inch" east of Germany:
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Quoting the relevant portion:
**
Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.
**

In summary, it is the Russians who have learned not to trust the west's promises, and rightly so. And yet, despite all of this, they have been far more active than the west in trying to make a peace deal in Ukraine from the start of their intervention into Ukraine.

I didn’t read your pro Putin dreck, the man murders and jails his detractors. Anything you say in support of Putin is propaganda. You can’t polish a turd and call it a good nugget.

 

[Scott]

He's been a lot more honorable on the international scene then various western countries. Here's an article of Angela Merkel admitting that the Minsk agreements were only signed to give Ukraine time to build up its army:

ANGELA MERKEL ADMITS THAT THE MINSK AGREEMENTS WERE ONLY SIGNED TO GIVE UKRAINE TIME | Donbass Insider

And ofcourse there's also the west's promise of "not one inch" east of Germany:
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Quoting the relevant portion:
**
Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.
**

In summary, it is the Russians who have learned not to trust the west's promises, and rightly so. And yet, despite all of this, they have been far more active than the west in trying to make a peace deal in Ukraine from the start of their intervention into Ukraine.

I didn’t read your pro Putin dreck

I cited 2 articles. The first was from the The Donbass Insider, regarding what Angela Merkle has said of the Minsk accords. This is not "Pro Putin dreck", this is just relaying what she said. Quoting from the article:

**
In June 2022, in an interview with several Western media outlets, including Deutsche Welle, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko publicly admitted that there had never been any question of implementing the Minsk agreements, and that they had only been intended to give Ukraine time.

“We got what we wanted. We did not believe Putin, just as we do not believe him now. Our task was, first of all, to remove the threat, or at least to delay the war. We gave ourselves eight years to restore economic growth and build up the strength of the armed forces. That was the first task – and it was accomplished […]. Despite the fact that the war lasted eight years – as far as a large-scale military operation is concerned, I think the Minsk agreements have fulfilled their role,” said Petro Poroshenko.

This is not the first statement by Petro Poroshenko that the Minsk agreements were just a way for Ukraine to buy time, so it has not particularly caught the attention of those who have long known that Kiev had no intention of implementing these agreements.

But where it becomes shocking is when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel says exactly the same thing, on 7 December 2022, in an interview with the Zeit (available in full here). https://archive.ph/OY5cG



Translation:

“I considered the 2008 discussion on the membership of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO to be a mistake. These countries did not have the necessary conditions for it, and the consequences of such a decision had not been fully considered, both in terms of Russia’s actions against Georgia and Ukraine and for NATO and its rules of assistance. And the 2014 Minsk agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time.”

[snip]

Translation:

“We all knew that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem was not solved, but this is precisely what gave Ukraine precious time.”

I would remind you that Germany was the guarantor of the Minsk agreements, and especially of their implementation by Ukraine! Clearly, from the start Angela Merkel, and therefore also François Hollande and Emmanuel Macron, knew perfectly well that not only would Ukraine not apply the Minsk agreements, but that this would leave Kiev just enough time to prepare for a resolution of the conflict by force! Moreover, the telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron that took place four days before the launch of the Russian special military operation, and which was leaked by the French President, clearly showed that the latter knew that Ukraine was going to attack, since he asked the Russian President not to react to Ukrainian provocations (in other words not to intervene to defend the Donbass).

When one has this information in hand, and recalls the endless litanies of France and Germany complaining that Russia (a guarantor like them and not a party to the conflict) was not applying the Minsk agreements, one thinks that the level of hypocrisy of the German and French authorities is literally cosmic!

The Russian authorities of course reacted strongly to Angela Merkel’s statement, starting with Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, who said that this interview gave Russia proof of what she had been saying for years about the lack of will on the part of the West to push Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. Above all, the purpose of the agreements was to serve as a diversion while NATO countries pumped arms into Ukraine and then reignited the conflict.

“In this revelation, the main point was that, from the West’s point of view, it was all a fabrication, flirting with the use of international law for the sole purpose of supplying the Kiev regime with weapons. It was all about “distracting” the eyes of the international community from the real events on the territory of Ukraine, the humanitarian catastrophe, the endless killings, which claimed more than 13,000 victims on all sides before 2022. This had only one purpose: to supply the Kiev regime with weapons and to prepare it politically to launch the hostilities that we saw at the beginning of 2022, when the Kiev regime started to launch deadly strikes against the Donbass. This left no room for any other action than that taken by the Russian Federation: first recognizing these territories as sovereign, and then accepting them as part of the Russian Federation so that they can really defend them, to save their lives,” said Maria Zakharova.
**

As to the second article, it's an article from the National Security Archive, hardly "Pro Putin dreck".

If you find anything that you believe is in error in either of the articles, by all means point it out.

 

[Nordberg]

Biden said he would unshakably back Israel and now insist on a cease fire or lose support of the US.

Circumstances changed. Israel is going way past their "mandate". There are more children being killed in Palestine than in all wars for the last 5 years. There are more reporters and aid workers being killed too. Israel has stepped will over the line.

 

[Stone]

If justice were a thing in this situation, Ukraine would get all territory back, including the Crimean peninsula.

Then Russia should pay billions in reparations to Ukraine and the USA.

They shouldnt have listened to the Bribem administration and took the deal they were offered way back when. Things could have ended peacefully but instead they listened to corrupt Bribem. Now they are screwed and have lost almost all of their bargaining power. The Russians have no reason to be gracious in negotiations now. VERY VERY dumb on Ukraines part to believe in someone as corrupt as Bribem. Now they will be forced to take whatever the Russians offer and be glad to get it. What a shame........

 

[Stone]

I cited 2 articles. The first was from the The Donbass Insider, regarding what Angela Merkle has said of the Minsk accords. This is not "Pro Putin dreck", this is just relaying what she said. Quoting from the article:

**
In June 2022, in an interview with several Western media outlets, including Deutsche Welle, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko publicly admitted that there had never been any question of implementing the Minsk agreements, and that they had only been intended to give Ukraine time.

“We got what we wanted. We did not believe Putin, just as we do not believe him now. Our task was, first of all, to remove the threat, or at least to delay the war. We gave ourselves eight years to restore economic growth and build up the strength of the armed forces. That was the first task – and it was accomplished […]. Despite the fact that the war lasted eight years – as far as a large-scale military operation is concerned, I think the Minsk agreements have fulfilled their role,” said Petro Poroshenko.

This is not the first statement by Petro Poroshenko that the Minsk agreements were just a way for Ukraine to buy time, so it has not particularly caught the attention of those who have long known that Kiev had no intention of implementing these agreements.

But where it becomes shocking is when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel says exactly the same thing, on 7 December 2022, in an interview with the Zeit (available in full here). https://archive.ph/OY5cG

View attachment 26077

Translation:

“I considered the 2008 discussion on the membership of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO to be a mistake. These countries did not have the necessary conditions for it, and the consequences of such a decision had not been fully considered, both in terms of Russia’s actions against Georgia and Ukraine and for NATO and its rules of assistance. And the 2014 Minsk agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time.”

[snip]

Translation:

“We all knew that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem was not solved, but this is precisely what gave Ukraine precious time.”

I would remind you that Germany was the guarantor of the Minsk agreements, and especially of their implementation by Ukraine! Clearly, from the start Angela Merkel, and therefore also François Hollande and Emmanuel Macron, knew perfectly well that not only would Ukraine not apply the Minsk agreements, but that this would leave Kiev just enough time to prepare for a resolution of the conflict by force! Moreover, the telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron that took place four days before the launch of the Russian special military operation, and which was leaked by the French President, clearly showed that the latter knew that Ukraine was going to attack, since he asked the Russian President not to react to Ukrainian provocations (in other words not to intervene to defend the Donbass).

When one has this information in hand, and recalls the endless litanies of France and Germany complaining that Russia (a guarantor like them and not a party to the conflict) was not applying the Minsk agreements, one thinks that the level of hypocrisy of the German and French authorities is literally cosmic!

The Russian authorities of course reacted strongly to Angela Merkel’s statement, starting with Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, who said that this interview gave Russia proof of what she had been saying for years about the lack of will on the part of the West to push Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. Above all, the purpose of the agreements was to serve as a diversion while NATO countries pumped arms into Ukraine and then reignited the conflict.

“In this revelation, the main point was that, from the West’s point of view, it was all a fabrication, flirting with the use of international law for the sole purpose of supplying the Kiev regime with weapons. It was all about “distracting” the eyes of the international community from the real events on the territory of Ukraine, the humanitarian catastrophe, the endless killings, which claimed more than 13,000 victims on all sides before 2022. This had only one purpose: to supply the Kiev regime with weapons and to prepare it politically to launch the hostilities that we saw at the beginning of 2022, when the Kiev regime started to launch deadly strikes against the Donbass. This left no room for any other action than that taken by the Russian Federation: first recognizing these territories as sovereign, and then accepting them as part of the Russian Federation so that they can really defend them, to save their lives,” said Maria Zakharova.
**

As to the second article, it's an article from the National Security Archive, hardly "Pro Putin dreck".

If you find anything that you believe is in error in either of the articles, by all means point it out.

They cant. You are quoting facts. Facts backed by actual research on the subject. Meanwhile they are depending on what some MSNBC mockingbird spoon feeds them complete with half truths and outright lies.

 

[Jarod]

They shouldnt have listened to the Bribem administration and took the deal they were offered way back when. Things could have ended peacefully but instead they listened to corrupt Bribem. Now they are screwed and have lost almost all of their bargaining power. The Russians have no reason to be gracious in negotiations now. VERY VERY dumb on Ukraines part to believe in someone as corrupt as Bribem. Now they will be forced to take whatever the Russians offer and be glad to get it. What a shame........

So you are okay with the idea that the strongest get to make the rules and take whatever they want?

Congress will again fund Ukraine, even if we have to wait until late November to do it. I am against negotiating sovantry under the threat of brutal invasion.

 

[Cypress]

So you are okay with the idea that the strongest get to make the rules and take whatever they want?

Congress will again fund Ukraine, even if we have to wait until late November to do it. I am against negotiating sovantry under the threat of brutal invasion.

MAGA's strategy appears to be to withdraw aid and abandon Ukraine, and then pat themselves on the backs for predicting 2.5 years ago Ukraine would lose.

 

[Jarod]

MAGA's strategy appears to be to withdraw aid and abandon Ukraine, and then pat themselves on the backs for predicting 2.5 years ago Ukraine would lose.

All that matters to them is having been correct.

 

[Scott]

They shouldnt have listened to the Bribem administration and took the deal they were offered way back when. Things could have ended peacefully but instead they listened to corrupt Bribem. Now they are screwed and have lost almost all of their bargaining power. The Russians have no reason to be gracious in negotiations now. VERY VERY dumb on Ukraines part to believe in someone as corrupt as Bribem. Now they will be forced to take whatever the Russians offer and be glad to get it. What a shame........

So you are okay with the idea that the strongest get to make the rules and take whatever they want?

I can't speak for Stone, but I do believe that's how the west's "Rules based order" essentially works. I think what's happening in Gaza is a good example of this in action. That being said, I think what's happened and is currently happening in Ukraine is much more complicated then "might is right". The war there didn't start when Russia intervened militarily, but rather 8 years prior, back in 2014- it started as a civil war. In these 8 years, Russia made strong efforts to resolve the issues diplomatically, resulting in 2 Minsk agreements. Unfortunately, the west and its Ukrainian henchmen only agreed to them to buy themselves time to fortify the Ukrainian army and then once again try to retake the Donbass region, as well as Crimea which had voted to rejoin Russia back in 2014. I referenced a good article from the Donbass Insider on the subject in this post if you're interested in learning more.

Congress will again fund Ukraine, even if we have to wait until late November to do it.

If Ukraine hasn't come to a peace deal with Russia by then, you may well be right. That being said, I agree with an article from former CIA Analyst Ray Mcgovern and retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson that it would just be throwing good money after bad:

Throwing Good Money After Bad in Ukraine? | Consortium News

I am against negotiating sovantry under the threat of brutal invasion.

That line makes me think of a line Kevin Costner said in some movie- something like "That's not a threat, it's a fact". Russia's already intervened militarily in Ukraine. As to what lies ahead, I think that American Professor Mearsheimer made some good points in a podcast he was part of back in January. Below are some quotes from him in said podcast:

**
It’s ridiculous to think that Ukraine can hold the line in 2024 and then eventually take the offensive. That’s just not going to happen. They took the offensive this past summer and it was a colossal failure. And there’s no way that we’re going to arm up and train the Ukrainians by 2025, so that they’ll be in a position to overwhelm the Russians, who are arming up their forces and training their forces more effectively than we are. I think that the best we can hope for is that the Ukrainians maintain the status quo in 2024—I’m talking here about the status quo on the battlefield—and that they can do that into 2025. The real danger is that the Ukrainians are going to be defeated by the Russians over the course of this year and next year. That, I think, is the more likely outcome—that the Russians will just roll back the Ukrainians. The idea that Ukraine is going to launch some offensive in 2025 and turn the tide is delusional.

[Apart from manpower problems,] … there are three other problems that the Ukrainians face. First of all, the weaponry issue. We’re going to give lots of money, I believe, to the Ukrainians and the EU will do the same thing, but they don’t need money as much as they need weapons. And we don’t have the weaponry to give them.

Point two, if you look at what’s happened in the air war, the Russians have basically eviscerated the air defenses in Ukraine, so they’re now free to attack all sorts of targets in Ukraine, near the front lines and deep in Ukraine, and to do all sorts of damage. This is a huge force multiplier for the Russians.

And then, finally, if you look at the political situation inside Ukraine, what you see is all sorts of trouble. ... You have this fractious political situation that could even lead to a coup or possible assassination—who knows—inside of Kyiv.

[snip]

I think we will have to live with the fact that the Russians will end up conquering more territory. I’ve long argued that they would take the four oblasts west of the four oblasts they control now or have annexed so far. And they may even take a bit more. And I think there would be nothing we could do to prevent that. But we would do everything we could to sort of reconstitute the Ukrainian forces, shore them up, and do what we could to negotiate with the Russians to make sure that they didn’t take all of Ukraine and that this rump Ukrainian state remained intact.
**

Full transcript:
Mearsheimer on Where the Ukraine War Is Headed | Russia Matters

 

[Stone]

All that matters to them is having been correct.

Yeah because,...you know,.....I control D.C's purse strings when it comes to Ukraine spending from my home in Wisconsin Nor was it me that brought back an old thread every time some Ukrainian shot a Ruskie,...THAT would be Cypress.

 

[Stone]

With the help of Biden and NATO, Ukraine has stopped Putin's invasion dead in it's tracks and has been gradually recapturing formerly occupied territories.

Russia's great "ally" China is practically sitting on the sidelines and providing no military assistance to Putin, probably because the Chinese have no desire to back a loser.

I was ultimately right again. You of course were wrong yet again.

 

[Stone]

The time to compare the Russian military to a ferocious bear has long since past.

Russia could not even defeat a second rate European nation, and now they are reduced to launching most of their attacks against Ukrainian civilians rather than taking the Ukrainian armed forces head on.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Russia has decided that there is only one option....unconditional surrender.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The longer this takes, and the more terrorist activity there is against Russia, the less of Ukraine will exist...and they are fine with Poland taking what they dont want...Ukraine is losing the right to exist just as Israel has.

 

[Scott]

The longer this takes, and the more terrorist activity there is against Russia, the less of Ukraine will exist...

Probably true.

and they are fine with Poland taking what they dont want...

I'm not sure about this one, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Ukraine is losing the right to exist just as Israel has.

I don't know about that one, but I definitely think the current Ukrainian government is losing its right to exist. They were already well on their way to this goal though- banning all serious opposition parties certainly didn't help.

 

[Scott]

Russia has decided that there is only one option....unconditional surrender.

I'm not sure about that. Prior to the terrorist attack in Russia recently, they seemed fairly open to a negotiated settlement. I suspect that the negotiations at this point may be somewhat more aggressive though.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Probably true.



I'm not sure about this one, but I wouldn't be surprised.



I don't know about that one, but I definitely think the current Ukrainian government is losing its right to exist. They were already well on their way to this goal though- banning all serious opposition parties certainly didn't help.

Dont sugar coat it...being NAZI's full of racist hate does not help.