He’s been “quietly” signaling for a cease fire for quite some time…. Anything to freeze the conflict and buy time to regroup and rearm. A ceasefire would only help the belligerent. The west needs...
He’s been “quietly” signaling for a cease fire for quite some time…. Anything to freeze the conflict and buy time to regroup and rearm. A ceasefire would only help the belligerent. The west needs to double down on supplying Ukraine with the weapons and intelligence they need to get their territory back and build a DMZ with at the Russian border.
Future is very hard, sometime impossible to predict. That doesn't mean that we should stop trying to change it.
There's virtually no way that Ukraine and the West would be capable of pushing Russia back to its own border on all the fronts in order to create a DMZ.
Future is very hard, sometime impossible to predict. That doesn't mean that we should stop trying to change it.
That’s literally the situation the Ukrainians are in. And they feel like ceasefire is not an option. Considering all the war crimes, I’m not sure their opponent would stick to any rules.
That’s literally the situation the Ukrainians are in. And they feel like ceasefire is not an option. Considering all the war crimes, I’m not sure their opponent would stick to any rules.
The article clearly and explicitly mentions how responses depend on framing. You cherry-picked the framing that fits your narrative and omitted the opposite: The majority of respondents (54...
The article clearly and explicitly mentions how responses depend on framing. You cherry-picked the framing that fits your narrative and omitted the opposite:
The majority of respondents (54 percent) supported the idea of continuing the war, while only 16 percent saw starting an immediate ceasefire negotiation as critical.
The majority of respondents were optimistic about the victory of Ukraine in the war: 57 percent were very optimistic and 31 percent were mostly optimistic, while only 6 percent had a pessimistic view.
Which is why I consider your post strongly misleading.
No, that was not your point at all. I no longer believe you are discussing in good faith - I now strongly suspect you are intentionally trying to mislead and misinform.
No, that was not your point at all. I no longer believe you are discussing in good faith - I now strongly suspect you are intentionally trying to mislead and misinform.
One of the most formative experiences in my life was a revolution in my country, and specifically the fact, that if you asked people a day before it started, the absolute majority would tell you...
There's virtually no way that Ukraine and the West would be capable of pushing Russia back to its own border on all the fronts in order to create a DMZ.
One of the most formative experiences in my life was a revolution in my country, and specifically the fact, that if you asked people a day before it started, the absolute majority would tell you there's no way of that happening any time soon.
I think the concept of attractor can be useful to think about stuff like that. A dynamical system might seem very stable but then the right kind of event at the right time will kick it into a completely different path. In the case or Russia, it might be something like Putin having a stroke tomorrow, but it can also be a seemingly small and random event you would never expect to affect history.
Absolutely. And why wouldn't I? It is not like any totalitarian government can exert absolute control. They are still subject to demographic, economic, and god knows what else trends (which also...
Absolutely.
And why wouldn't I? It is not like any totalitarian government can exert absolute control. They are still subject to demographic, economic, and god knows what else trends (which also includes powers struggles within the regime - it is not as if Putin is some kind of all-controlling god - he himself depends on a complicated network of relationships that can collapse fast).
You are asking that question as if we have not witnessed that before - don't you remember how the Soviet Union was not able to sustain the war in Afghanistan?
I grew up in a totalitarian country and I am deeply convinced that totalitarianism itself exerts forces that will inevitably lead to its collapse - this is why I believe the regime in Russia will collapse sooner or later even without the war in Ukraine. Although the war can make that process faster.
I'd just like to point out that you're uncritically supporting a Russian talking point that I'd argue is categorically false. Russia already borders several NATO states. If you count Belarus, the...
Exemplary
a NATO-aligned Ukraine would pose a security threat to the Russian mainland.
I'd just like to point out that you're uncritically supporting a Russian talking point that I'd argue is categorically false. Russia already borders several NATO states. If you count Belarus, the Russian-NATO border goes from the northernmost parts of NATO, the Norway-Murmansk area, all the way down to the Ukrainian-Polish border. Extending that border to the black sea will lengthen it, but it does already very much exist and it's quite long indeed.
So if NATO members wanted to fight Russia kinetically, they have the space to do so. But NATO is a defensive alliance, so Estonians crossing into Russia does not draw the rest of NATO into the war. Likewise with Ukraine; Ukraine can't start a NATO-Russia war even if it becomes a full member with full territorial integrity. Parts of NATO could agree to fight Russia, but that'd not be a NATO thing, and with the border already existing, it's been a constant risk since 1945, and a negligible one since 1990.
Russia isn't threatened by a NATO-aligned Ukraine. What is threatened is Russia's ability to project power over other nations in their sphere of influence, and I hope we can all agree that Russia deserves to eat shit on this one. Another thing that's threatened by the war itself is Russia's security from conventional attack. If NATO did want to attack Russia, now would be a great time to do so, and finishing the war at whatever terms necessary is what Russia would have to do to reestablish its conventional deterrence. Right now they're entirely relying on their nuclear deterrence.
Russia is not threatened by a NATO-aligned Ukraine, and saying that it is is basically saying that Putin was right in starting this war.
The mobilization last year shows that the Russian populace will become restless if it hits too close to home. They can't continuously siphon people beyond what they're already sourcing from Buryat...
The mobilization last year shows that the Russian populace will become restless if it hits too close to home. They can't continuously siphon people beyond what they're already sourcing from Buryat and Yakutsk. The majority of their population lives in the western part of Russia and those do not feel happy about mobilizing.
Isn't this the same logic used when people try to discredit the validity of ceasefires with regard to the Israeli invasion of Gaza? It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't here. Ukraine would...
Isn't this the same logic used when people try to discredit the validity of ceasefires with regard to the Israeli invasion of Gaza? It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't here. Ukraine would get to regroup too, and more to the point, a ceasefire would at least temporarily mean that people aren't being killed. You don't stop wars by shooting down attempts at peace, however temporary they may be.
No, it doesn't make sense here. A ceasefire would allow the aggressor to pick the next battle at any point. If Russia postures again, Ukraine would have to draft people again and ruin its economy....
No, it doesn't make sense here. A ceasefire would allow the aggressor to pick the next battle at any point. If Russia postures again, Ukraine would have to draft people again and ruin its economy. And ruin that economy every single time Putin wants then too.
Russian troops are fixed now. They can't redeploy elsewhere and fix their initial fuck ups because of that. A ceasefire would be absolute stupidest thing we could do if we don't want to be dealing with an agressive Russia for the next 20 years.
It was almost impossible to coordinate the West into supplying and aiding Ukraine. If Ukraine bombs Russian positions for "violating the ceasefire", that's all the West will need to not help....
It was almost impossible to coordinate the West into supplying and aiding Ukraine. If Ukraine bombs Russian positions for "violating the ceasefire", that's all the West will need to not help.
Regarding North and South Korea; and how did that work for Korea unification? Should we condemn eastern Ukraine to North Korea's fate? And regardless, Ukraine's current effective borders are not defensible. There are too many urban centres vulnerable to Russian attack. Freezing the current frontline means the next attack will be worse. Ukraine, at the bare minimum, needs the pre war borders. Ideally Crimea as well, as that ends any threat to the south and southwest. Donbas has important industry, but the defense in depth still works without it. It's not essential to defense. Everything else is. Right now, there's not enough depth.
A Korean solution isn't an option. All it means is that you and me are going to have this damn conversation again in 5 years. The cheapest and least bloody way this ends is if the West supports Ukraine until it recovers its territory, and it joins NATO. Coupled with protecting the Caucasus and Moldova, that permanently ends Russian military expansion.
Was it? I am not so sure. I would say that at least parts of the West view supplying and aiding Ukraine as a pretty cheap way to further their strategic interests. I would also ask how...
It was almost impossible to coordinate the West into supplying and aiding Ukraine.
Was it? I am not so sure. I would say that at least parts of the West view supplying and aiding Ukraine as a pretty cheap way to further their strategic interests.
If Ukraine bombs Russian positions for "violating the ceasefire", that's all the West will need to not help.
I would also ask how specifically you define "the West" in this context. I know that for example Poland and other NATO members previously under Russian influence were traditionally not labeled "the West"... but maybe this is changing now? I do not want to overestimate the influence of those countries but on the other hand, they still feel the threat of Russia viscerally, they will not be dissuaded from helping that easily. Maybe even Germany learned the lesson and now perceives Russia as an actual threat and will therefore continue supporting Ukraine. Also, I suspect that a lot that you can see in the US is posturing - even between the republicans there are some that talk the talk to achieve their political goals, but when the moment of decision comes, they will support Ukraine, because they realize it is beneficial to the US.
Extremely difficult, we can barely do it today. Supplying Ukraine is a cheap way of both doing the right thing and defending our interests, but it was a huge fight for anything. For tanks, ammo,...
Extremely difficult, we can barely do it today. Supplying Ukraine is a cheap way of both doing the right thing and defending our interests, but it was a huge fight for anything. For tanks, ammo, planes, every single time the West said it's impossible, until eventually it became very possible and very easy. These delays have lengthened the war. If the West had provided Ukraine with everything it's giving today from Day 1, the battlefield would look extremely different.
I'm using the word West because we don't have a more appropriate word. The alliances that usually include NATO, the rest of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Whatever name this group has.
The OECD has all the countries you listed, except for Taiwan. It's primarily an economic partnership organization, but all the members also generally have aligned geopolitical interests, and...
The OECD has all the countries you listed, except for Taiwan. It's primarily an economic partnership organization, but all the members also generally have aligned geopolitical interests, and almost all have provided military aid to Ukraine at some point since the war started.
A little bit, but not entirely. Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chila and Israel aren't very much aligned with this bloc. I'm not sure I'd consider them part of the wider alliance. Whereas non...
A little bit, but not entirely. Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chila and Israel aren't very much aligned with this bloc. I'm not sure I'd consider them part of the wider alliance. Whereas non members like Moldova, Ukraine, Croatia, Bulgaria (for now) and Romania are.
There's no formal web that I can see. It's NATO and the EU (and the EFTA a bit) on the European and North American side (minus Hungary and Turkey). In east Asia, it's Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, through their specific alliances with the US. And in Oceania, it's Australia and New Zealand, through their alliances with the US and the UK.
Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect analog. Although I think Costa Rica doesn't deserve to be included in your list of exceptions, since they actually have imposed sanctions against Russia, and...
Plenty of people get suicided in Russia all the time according to the whim of the Moscow elites. Saying that Ukraine capitulating would lead to no deaths is a pretty strange analysis considering...
Plenty of people get suicided in Russia all the time according to the whim of the Moscow elites. Saying that Ukraine capitulating would lead to no deaths is a pretty strange analysis considering that at least definitely everyone currently making decisions there would get immediately purged and either work camp'd to death or just murdered by the FSB. The ongoing deaths afterwards due to partisans and underground rebellions should also not be discounted.
You probably do not need to analyze the logic of a statement that someone posts as a "reductio ad absurdum" example of flawed logic. It is obvious that it is incorrect, intentionally.
You probably do not need to analyze the logic of a statement that someone posts as a "reductio ad absurdum" example of flawed logic. It is obvious that it is incorrect, intentionally.
Not with the supply lines being as they are. Ukraine has far more to lose from a ceasefire than Russia does. There's a reason there haven't been any. Not only does Russia repeatedly violate...
Not with the supply lines being as they are. Ukraine has far more to lose from a ceasefire than Russia does. There's a reason there haven't been any. Not only does Russia repeatedly violate ceasefires anyway, it also gives them ample time to regroup, redeploy, and resupply.
This is not how wars work. Two sides never benefit equally from the ceasefire. When you think your enemy would benefit more, you don't accept a ceasefire. And you don't fall prey to short-term...
It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't here. Ukraine would get to regroup too, and more to the point, a ceasefire would at least temporarily mean that people aren't being killed.
This is not how wars work. Two sides never benefit equally from the ceasefire. When you think your enemy would benefit more, you don't accept a ceasefire. And you don't fall prey to short-term thinking - the fact that people aren't being killed temporarily is not a good thing if it creates conditions allowing the enemy to kill a lot more people later. If you believe your enemy is not negotiating in good faith and wants the ceasefire only to regroup and attack again with bigger force, you don't accept it - you would be exchanging people not killed now for more people killed later -> net result: more deaths.
He's always had the option to stop the entire war if he was actually willing; just leave the country. If I broke into your house and took over your front doorway and half your living room, you...
He's always had the option to stop the entire war if he was actually willing; just leave the country.
If I broke into your house and took over your front doorway and half your living room, you wouldn't roll over when I 'quietly' signaled that I might be open to a ceasefire, especially not if I'd been in your doorway for almost a decade. He can leave whenever he wants and stop ALL the deaths - any posturing that Ukraine is responsible for deaths by not accepting a ceasefire needs to remember that we're coming up on a decade of Russian occupation of Ukraine. Putin has had ten years to stop invading a sovereign nation next door.
Yes, we can draw parallels between the US and Russian here but, and here's the kicker, I think the US's invasion was bad too! And they left in the end! So, today, tomorrow, another ten years, the answer is always Russia leaves to stop the violence.
He’s been “quietly” signaling for a cease fire for quite some time…. Anything to freeze the conflict and buy time to regroup and rearm. A ceasefire would only help the belligerent. The west needs to double down on supplying Ukraine with the weapons and intelligence they need to get their territory back and build a DMZ with at the Russian border.
Future is very hard, sometime impossible to predict. That doesn't mean that we should stop trying to change it.
That’s literally the situation the Ukrainians are in. And they feel like ceasefire is not an option. Considering all the war crimes, I’m not sure their opponent would stick to any rules.
The article clearly and explicitly mentions how responses depend on framing. You cherry-picked the framing that fits your narrative and omitted the opposite:
The majority of respondents (54 percent) supported the idea of continuing the war, while only 16 percent saw starting an immediate ceasefire negotiation as critical.
The majority of respondents were optimistic about the victory of Ukraine in the war: 57 percent were very optimistic and 31 percent were mostly optimistic, while only 6 percent had a pessimistic view.
Which is why I consider your post strongly misleading.
No, that was not your point at all. I no longer believe you are discussing in good faith - I now strongly suspect you are intentionally trying to mislead and misinform.
I don't need imagination. Im in Ukraine now )
One of the most formative experiences in my life was a revolution in my country, and specifically the fact, that if you asked people a day before it started, the absolute majority would tell you there's no way of that happening any time soon.
I think the concept of attractor can be useful to think about stuff like that. A dynamical system might seem very stable but then the right kind of event at the right time will kick it into a completely different path. In the case or Russia, it might be something like Putin having a stroke tomorrow, but it can also be a seemingly small and random event you would never expect to affect history.
From the entirety of your post, this is the only thing I believe is true.
Absolutely.
And why wouldn't I? It is not like any totalitarian government can exert absolute control. They are still subject to demographic, economic, and god knows what else trends (which also includes powers struggles within the regime - it is not as if Putin is some kind of all-controlling god - he himself depends on a complicated network of relationships that can collapse fast).
You are asking that question as if we have not witnessed that before - don't you remember how the Soviet Union was not able to sustain the war in Afghanistan?
I grew up in a totalitarian country and I am deeply convinced that totalitarianism itself exerts forces that will inevitably lead to its collapse - this is why I believe the regime in Russia will collapse sooner or later even without the war in Ukraine. Although the war can make that process faster.
I'd just like to point out that you're uncritically supporting a Russian talking point that I'd argue is categorically false. Russia already borders several NATO states. If you count Belarus, the Russian-NATO border goes from the northernmost parts of NATO, the Norway-Murmansk area, all the way down to the Ukrainian-Polish border. Extending that border to the black sea will lengthen it, but it does already very much exist and it's quite long indeed.
So if NATO members wanted to fight Russia kinetically, they have the space to do so. But NATO is a defensive alliance, so Estonians crossing into Russia does not draw the rest of NATO into the war. Likewise with Ukraine; Ukraine can't start a NATO-Russia war even if it becomes a full member with full territorial integrity. Parts of NATO could agree to fight Russia, but that'd not be a NATO thing, and with the border already existing, it's been a constant risk since 1945, and a negligible one since 1990.
Russia isn't threatened by a NATO-aligned Ukraine. What is threatened is Russia's ability to project power over other nations in their sphere of influence, and I hope we can all agree that Russia deserves to eat shit on this one. Another thing that's threatened by the war itself is Russia's security from conventional attack. If NATO did want to attack Russia, now would be a great time to do so, and finishing the war at whatever terms necessary is what Russia would have to do to reestablish its conventional deterrence. Right now they're entirely relying on their nuclear deterrence.
Russia is not threatened by a NATO-aligned Ukraine, and saying that it is is basically saying that Putin was right in starting this war.
The mobilization last year shows that the Russian populace will become restless if it hits too close to home. They can't continuously siphon people beyond what they're already sourcing from Buryat and Yakutsk. The majority of their population lives in the western part of Russia and those do not feel happy about mobilizing.
Isn't this the same logic used when people try to discredit the validity of ceasefires with regard to the Israeli invasion of Gaza? It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't here. Ukraine would get to regroup too, and more to the point, a ceasefire would at least temporarily mean that people aren't being killed. You don't stop wars by shooting down attempts at peace, however temporary they may be.
No, it doesn't make sense here. A ceasefire would allow the aggressor to pick the next battle at any point. If Russia postures again, Ukraine would have to draft people again and ruin its economy. And ruin that economy every single time Putin wants then too.
Russian troops are fixed now. They can't redeploy elsewhere and fix their initial fuck ups because of that. A ceasefire would be absolute stupidest thing we could do if we don't want to be dealing with an agressive Russia for the next 20 years.
It was almost impossible to coordinate the West into supplying and aiding Ukraine. If Ukraine bombs Russian positions for "violating the ceasefire", that's all the West will need to not help.
Regarding North and South Korea; and how did that work for Korea unification? Should we condemn eastern Ukraine to North Korea's fate? And regardless, Ukraine's current effective borders are not defensible. There are too many urban centres vulnerable to Russian attack. Freezing the current frontline means the next attack will be worse. Ukraine, at the bare minimum, needs the pre war borders. Ideally Crimea as well, as that ends any threat to the south and southwest. Donbas has important industry, but the defense in depth still works without it. It's not essential to defense. Everything else is. Right now, there's not enough depth.
A Korean solution isn't an option. All it means is that you and me are going to have this damn conversation again in 5 years. The cheapest and least bloody way this ends is if the West supports Ukraine until it recovers its territory, and it joins NATO. Coupled with protecting the Caucasus and Moldova, that permanently ends Russian military expansion.
Was it? I am not so sure. I would say that at least parts of the West view supplying and aiding Ukraine as a pretty cheap way to further their strategic interests.
I would also ask how specifically you define "the West" in this context. I know that for example Poland and other NATO members previously under Russian influence were traditionally not labeled "the West"... but maybe this is changing now? I do not want to overestimate the influence of those countries but on the other hand, they still feel the threat of Russia viscerally, they will not be dissuaded from helping that easily. Maybe even Germany learned the lesson and now perceives Russia as an actual threat and will therefore continue supporting Ukraine. Also, I suspect that a lot that you can see in the US is posturing - even between the republicans there are some that talk the talk to achieve their political goals, but when the moment of decision comes, they will support Ukraine, because they realize it is beneficial to the US.
Extremely difficult, we can barely do it today. Supplying Ukraine is a cheap way of both doing the right thing and defending our interests, but it was a huge fight for anything. For tanks, ammo, planes, every single time the West said it's impossible, until eventually it became very possible and very easy. These delays have lengthened the war. If the West had provided Ukraine with everything it's giving today from Day 1, the battlefield would look extremely different.
I'm using the word West because we don't have a more appropriate word. The alliances that usually include NATO, the rest of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Whatever name this group has.
The OECD has all the countries you listed, except for Taiwan. It's primarily an economic partnership organization, but all the members also generally have aligned geopolitical interests, and almost all have provided military aid to Ukraine at some point since the war started.
A little bit, but not entirely. Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chila and Israel aren't very much aligned with this bloc. I'm not sure I'd consider them part of the wider alliance. Whereas non members like Moldova, Ukraine, Croatia, Bulgaria (for now) and Romania are.
There's no formal web that I can see. It's NATO and the EU (and the EFTA a bit) on the European and North American side (minus Hungary and Turkey). In east Asia, it's Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, through their specific alliances with the US. And in Oceania, it's Australia and New Zealand, through their alliances with the US and the UK.
Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect analog. Although I think Costa Rica doesn't deserve to be included in your list of exceptions, since they actually have imposed sanctions against Russia, and provided aid to Ukraine.
Fair enough, that's my bad then.
No worries. It's just us chatting at this point since the topic has been deleted by OP. :P
Ah, I hadn't noticed! A bit extreme, perhaps? I disagree categorically, but it's still worth talking about.
Can't agree,
By this logic Ukraine should capitulate immediately, no war - no deaths.
Plenty of people get suicided in Russia all the time according to the whim of the Moscow elites. Saying that Ukraine capitulating would lead to no deaths is a pretty strange analysis considering that at least definitely everyone currently making decisions there would get immediately purged and either work camp'd to death or just murdered by the FSB. The ongoing deaths afterwards due to partisans and underground rebellions should also not be discounted.
You probably do not need to analyze the logic of a statement that someone posts as a "reductio ad absurdum" example of flawed logic. It is obvious that it is incorrect, intentionally.
Not with the supply lines being as they are. Ukraine has far more to lose from a ceasefire than Russia does. There's a reason there haven't been any. Not only does Russia repeatedly violate ceasefires anyway, it also gives them ample time to regroup, redeploy, and resupply.
This is not how wars work. Two sides never benefit equally from the ceasefire. When you think your enemy would benefit more, you don't accept a ceasefire. And you don't fall prey to short-term thinking - the fact that people aren't being killed temporarily is not a good thing if it creates conditions allowing the enemy to kill a lot more people later. If you believe your enemy is not negotiating in good faith and wants the ceasefire only to regroup and attack again with bigger force, you don't accept it - you would be exchanging people not killed now for more people killed later -> net result: more deaths.
He's always had the option to stop the entire war if he was actually willing; just leave the country.
If I broke into your house and took over your front doorway and half your living room, you wouldn't roll over when I 'quietly' signaled that I might be open to a ceasefire, especially not if I'd been in your doorway for almost a decade. He can leave whenever he wants and stop ALL the deaths - any posturing that Ukraine is responsible for deaths by not accepting a ceasefire needs to remember that we're coming up on a decade of Russian occupation of Ukraine. Putin has had ten years to stop invading a sovereign nation next door.
Yes, we can draw parallels between the US and Russian here but, and here's the kicker, I think the US's invasion was bad too! And they left in the end! So, today, tomorrow, another ten years, the answer is always Russia leaves to stop the violence.