Ukraine III

[cooky1257]

As things stand the Ukrainians have inflicted heavy losses on the Russians and slowed their advance however its plain for all to see the level of aerial bombardment is only just getting started.
Russia is more than capable of flattening the major cities of Ukraine without ever needing to fight street to street.
This is a window of opportunity to end this conflict as both sides are at a point where one weighs the costs in terms of men and hardware and the other decides if dying for a pile of rubble makes any sense.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I doubt that neither Zelensky nor Putin read PFM

No but that other Dmitry guy is a bit of an audiophile. I wonder...

 

[matthewr]

Zelensky himself has already called for peace talks, and I rather doubt that he has surrender, occupation or totalitarianism in mind as a necessary consequence. Rather, I would imagine preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty and an end to the suffering of Ukrainians are top of his list of demands.

Yes and the problem is that Russia's position is that Ukraine should reward Putin's war by surrendering more territory and sovereignty. Of course everyone wants peace talks but one side wants a cease fire and ultimately withdrawal and the other side wants a chunk of your country and to write a bunch of rules about how your government should behave and what your sovereign nation you can do economically and politically.

Because of his personal leadership and bravery, and the heroism of the Ukrainian people, Zelensky has possibly given himself a good negotiation position, and as he has called for peace talks, he has, presumably, thought about what he can offer Putin as an incentive to achieve that peace.

And Putin has sad "Ok we will agree to no longer conquer your nation, no longer install a puppet regime (sorry I mean "denazify") and settle for taking *another* chunk of your land and making rules about your foreign policy and trade and in return we will stop the bombing and committing war crimes". What Ukraine has won with its resistance, heroism and sacrifice (and Putin's miscalculation) is that everyone now knows Putin cannot conquer Ukraine and cannot install a puppet government as the people would never accept such a thing. But it hasn't, yet, changed the reality of Putin being willing to wage this war.

In fact I would be very surprised if Zelensky could even persuade his people to accept the sort of negotiation that Putin would agree to at this point even if he wanted to. This is why talks are stuck. Not because people are not willing to talk cease fire and peace but because what's on offer is unacceptable to Ukraine.

If you feel that Zelensky is wrong to call for peace talks, what is it that you are calling for? If not peace, then what? And how will what ever it is you are arguing for, benefit humanity? And at what cost?

Again, the question is what are you willing to give to Putin in order to gain peace? It seems clear the bare minimum that anyone in Ukraine's position would accept is not currently on the table. You can't just magic up a solution, so we carry on until circumstances force one side to change it's position significantly as horrific as that may be.

 

[matthewr]

As things stand the Ukrainians have inflicted heavy losses on the Russians and slowed their advance however its plain for all to see the level of aerial bombardment is only just getting started.
Russia is more than capable of flattening the major cities of Ukraine without ever needing to fight street to street.
This is a window of opportunity to end this conflict as both sides are at a point where one weighs the costs in terms of men and hardware and the other decides if dying for a pile of rubble makes any sense.

What deal do you suggest Ukraine strikes in this window of opportunity? What deal do you think Russia would accept? Also remember that one side thinks a pile of rubble and dead bodies is just fine.

 

[cooky1257]

What deal do you suggest Ukraine strikes in this window of opportunity? What deal do you think Russia would accept? Also remember that one side thinks a pile of rubble and dead bodies is just fine.

You don't know, neither do I, it's for Ukraine to decide but an end to the slaughter is a win, talks tend to lead to ceasefires, death or glory is for fools and comfortable cheerleaders.

 

[gints]

This is a window of opportunity to end this conflict as both sides are at a point where one weighs the costs in terms of men and hardware and the other decides if dying for a pile of rubble makes any sense.

You are wrong, Putin do not care about lost men, and so far he achieved not a single objective of his war. So, there is zero chance for peace right now. And it is too much damage already done for Ukraine to make agreement with Russia. Maybe you can put on hold a war, nothing more. It is all down to success in battlefield.

 

[gints]

I don't even think it's logical.There are many examples in recent history where fighting was the correct response, and not just against the Third Reich.

Two contrasting examples:

- In June 1940, after the German army broke through in Northern France, Paris was declared an open city. This decision saved a lot of lives and real estate, and was probably the correct one.

Contrast that with what happened to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They rolled over in 1939 without much of a fight, and as a result they spent 50 years subjected to the tender mercies of Soviet occupation. Stalin deported tens of thousands of Balts to Kazakhstan and elsewhere, purely to destroy their national identity. Less than half returned. Their economies still haven't recovered (but they have now made very sure they joined NATO). Finland took very heavy losses (Finnish cemeteries are full of WW2 graves) and had to accommodate half a million Karelian refugees (10% of the Finnish population), but nobody got deported to Siberia and they were free to maintain their democratic institutions. A huge majority of Finns agree it was worth fighting for.

It was 1940, everything else very truth. And after all those years we still have discussions about did we right thing time to time. Instead of battle field people was dying from terror. I think now we will have none discussion. You cannot trust to a single word what comes out from Russia. If Ukraine going to trust them in those called peace talks, they are doomed.

 

[PsB]

Are you suggesting that continuing the fighting, rather than the peace talks Zelensky has called for, is the correct response in Ukraine? For how long? To what objective? At what cost?

No, and that’s not what I wrote either.

 

[PsB]

It was 1940, everything else very truth. And after all those years we still have discussions about did we right thing time to time. Instead of battle field people was dying from terror. I think now we will have none discussion. You cannot trust to a single word what comes out from Russia. If Ukraine going to trust them in those called peace talks, they are doomed.

Edited, thanks.

 

[TheDecameron]

I think the issue of concession can only be settled by the Ukrainians themselves. They have decided to fight to defend themselves, their country.
Putin has now invaded Ukraine three times, removing large parts of territory by force and if he agrees to a settlement where Ukraine disarms itself and concedes his territorial gains, what do you think is going to happen in the next five years of his reign? That he’ll fold up his invasion force and eventually retire to his Versailles on the Black Sea?

The unpalatable reality is as the Ukrainians have found, that the only way he will be stopped is by force. The Bosnian President said of Milošević in the negations to end the Balkan war, “offer him a finger and he takes your arm off at the elbow”.

 

[matthewr]

You don't know, neither do I but an end to the slaughter is a win, talks tend to lead to ceasefires, death or glory is for fools and comfortable cheerleaders.

Of course "death or glory" is not my position nor remotely what I was suggesting any more than I would suggest yours is one of appeasement or capitulation.

And they literally are having talks and trying to get a cease fire. They are just not going anywhere because the two sides have incompatible demands. The fact that I strongly support one side over the other doesn't change this calculus any more than really, really wanting an end to war.

 

[ks.234]

Yes and the problem is that Russia's position is that Ukraine should reward Putin's war by surrendering more territory and sovereignty. Of course everyone wants peace talks but one side wants a cease fire and ultimately withdrawal and the other side wants a chunk of your country and to write a bunch of rules about how your government should behave and what your sovereign nation you can do economically and politically.



And Putin has sad "Ok we will agree to no longer conquer your nation, no longer install a puppet regime (sorry I mean "denazify") and settle for taking *another* chunk of your land and making rules about your foreign policy and trade and in return we will stop the bombing and committing war crimes". What Ukraine has won with its resistance, heroism and sacrifice (and Putin's miscalculation) is that everyone now knows Putin cannot conquer Ukraine and cannot install a puppet government as the people would never accept such a thing. But it hasn't, yet, changed the reality of Putin being willing to wage this war.

In fact I would be very surprised if Zelensky could even persuade his people to accept the sort of negotiation that Putin would agree to at this point even if he wanted to. This is why talks are stuck. Not because people are not willing to talk cease fire and peace but because what's on offer is unacceptable to Ukraine.



Again, the question is what are you willing to give to Putin in order to gain peace? It seems clear the bare minimum that anyone in Ukraine's position would accept is not currently on the table. You can't just magic up a solution, so we carry on until circumstances force one side to change it's position significantly as horrific as that may be.

Why are you asking me what I would give? What I would give is irrelevant. This is about what Ukraine is willing to give in exchange for peace. It is up to Ukraine to decide if that price is too high. If you are correct and Putin wants territory, it is up the Ukraine to decide if that is a price worth paying. If you are correct and Putin wants to dilute Ukrainian sovereignty, then Ukraine might (I suggest) decide that is not a price worth paying. You also say that Putin wants to write a bunch of rules, but again if this is correct, I doubt it would be acceptable to Ukraine. Ukraine might also decide that continuing the fighting is a price worth paying to drive out Russia by force, or to strengthen the Ukrainian bargaining position further for a more acceptable peace later on.

I’m struggling to make sense of your second paragraph where you say that Putin wants to conquer Ukraine, install a puppet government etc, but that would be unacceptable. If it’s unacceptable, and I would agree it is, and what’s more it is, as you say, unachievable, why on earth would Ukraine agree to it?

Your last paragraph is a repeat of the first two, and my answer is the same. If what is on the table, and as far as I can see we don’t know what, if anything, is on the table, is unacceptable, then Ukrainians will not accept it. If Putin will not come to the negotiating table, then there will be no peace negotiations

Not sure who you think is trying to magic up a solution, if you think it’s me then you’re mistaken, I am nowhere near clever enough nor knowledgeable enough to come up with solutions. The only thing I have done is suggest that if, and I’ve highlighted the word ‘if’ in many posts now, the objective is to end the suffering of Ukrainians as soon as possible, then peace talks are the only way to achieve that end. Any solution will be down to those doing the negotiating. The only other option is a continuation and likely escalation of the war with the consequence that the suffering of Ukrainian men, women and children will continue and the body count will rise. If you are dismissive of exploring if there is any potential for peace, then a more war and suffering is all that’s left

If there is a better option, that alternative might, just might, be worth exploring

To be honest, I’m not sure why exploring a potential alternative to continued and escalating war is so controversial on pfm.

Especially as Zelensky himself has now called for peace talks and he obviously seems to think it an option worth exploring.

 

[cooky1257]

I'm of the opinion that capitulation is inevitable, in particular in the south east of Ukraine but hopefully not before sufficient damage is inflicted upon Putin and his armed forces to make any further expansionist campaigns highly unlikely.

 

[gints]

Russians even cannot make to keep safe agreed humanitarian passage out of city. Mariupol is like Leningrad at WWII, and that is by choice. So, I really cannot see any real will to speak about piece right now.

 

[ks.234]

No, and that’s not what I wrote either.

Apologies if I misunderstood your post, but you described my argument for exploring peace as illogical and then cited two examples justifying war so not sure what your post was supposed to mean

 

[gints]

After WWII there was still people in woods fighting Soviets. They were waiting for west to came help and drive Soviets back to their country. They did not came. If west will stop support Ukraine, it will 1945 again, at the moment they can stand against Russia, long term support is crucial, good to see that Slovakia agreed to provide S-300 air defence systems.

 

[gints]

Apologies if I misunderstood your post, but you described my argument for exploring peace as illogical and then cited two examples justifying war so not sure what your post was supposed to mean

That was example that peace can do as damage as war.

 

[cooky1257]

, good to see that Slovakia agreed to provide S-300 air defence systems.

Not entirely true. On condition NATO supply a replacement ( ie western)system to cover the gap and indeed somewhat cynical as they can no longer get spare parts for the S300.

 

[PsB]

Apologies if I misunderstood your post, but you described my argument for exploring peace as illogical and then cited two examples justifying war so not sure what your post was supposed to mean

May I suggest you read it again a bit more carefully? My first example actually did the opposite.

 

[ks.234]

Maybe read it again a bit more carefully. My first example actually did the opposite.

But you started off saying…

I don't even think it's logical.There are many examples in recent history where fighting was the correct response

…what does that mean if not that exploring peace options is illogical and fighting is the correct response?