advertisement


Ukraine V

Spraggons Den said:
Oh dear. I have just read Dinitryz post and its tone is fine - yours in the other hand - isn’t.

Maybe it’s just your frustration coming out because the hard left posters on PF have nothing useful to contribute on the war and are at odds with what Zelensky and the Ukrainian people indeed want.

Edit: I don’t think KS234 threadcraps.
Click to expand...
I lost my rag in response to this (directed at ks.234):
Unfortunately, in your case, you can never be misquoted - in your years of voluminous thread crapping you literally said everything about everything - like a million monkeys typing for a million years.
Click to expand...
It's not fine. It's aggressive, hectoring, rude and ad hom.

Still, I'm happy to apologise to DmitryZ for my own intemperance. Sorry about that.
 
ks.234 said:
You are confused. I didn’t accuse you of misquoting, I accused you of making things up. Not merely misrepresenting something that has been said, but invented things that have not been said.

My posts have been perfectly clear, that you have not been able to understand or recognise either the history or the economics that preceded the Russian invasion of Ukraine is down to you.

Neither has there been any thread capping, the title of this thread is just “Ukraine”, that does not preclude discussing various aspects of the current situation. It is not just a thread for you to discuss your favourite missile.

If you disagree with anything I have said, in this or any other thread, then engage with what I have actually said in the manner of a reasonable discussion instead of inventing things and resorting to petty insult.
Click to expand...
I will ask you the same question I asked @droodzilla - what is your position re the subject of the thread?

What negotiations positions do you advocate for the two combatants to take that would facilitate a near term cessation of hostilities? Do you advocate for Ukraine to seed land for some concessions by the Russian Federation? Do you recommend that the West eliminate the military aid to Ukraine, reduce it, keep it the same, increase it, or enter the conflict directly with their own troops (as @anubisgrau demands)?

Is there anything specific you can actually state here that can at least be factually responded to and debated?

Note: "I dunno" is not an acceptable answer.
 
droodzilla said:
I lost my rag in response to this (directed at ks.234):

It's not fine. It's aggressive, hectoring, rude and ad hom.

Still, I'm happy to apologise to DmitryZ for my own intemperance. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
Please don't worry about @ks.234 ,he will take care of himself quite ably, as all of us know.

Instead, try to formulate a practical left-leaning position on the conflict. I don't discount that there might be a set of currently invisible positions and moves that may convince the combatants to at least contemplate moving toward a ceasefire.

For example, in Russian language web, there was information that the delay in Western tank delivery was due to behind the scenes negotiations between the West and RF about an end to hostilities. From what I understand, the Western position was RF back to 2021 lines of control and negotiations on status of Crimea to be decided in 5 years, plus freezing Ukrainian NATO status for 10 years. Putin's counteroffer was Crimea his for 15 years and a land bridge to it along the Black Sea coast, which he currently controls plus whole of Lugansk and Donetsk and Ukraine in NATO never. That was totally unacceptable to Ukraine, so the deal fell through and the West announced tank deliveries.

Is there something the West can offer to RF to invite them to agree to some other concessions? Perhaps some new large arms control treaty?

What do you think we should do? What does a potential future peace between RF and Ukraine look like? Is UN peacekeeping involved? How does Ukraine pay for its' rebuilding?
 
DimitryZ said:
I will ask you the same question I asked @droodzilla - what is your position re the subject of the thread?

What negotiations positions do you advocate for the two combatants to take that would facilitate a near term cessation of hostilities? Do you advocate for Ukraine to seed land for some concessions by the Russian Federation? Do you recommend that the West eliminate the military aid to Ukraine, reduce it, keep it the same, increase it, or enter the conflict directly with their own troops (as @anubisgrau demands)?

Is there anything specific you can actually state here that can at least be factually responded to and debated?

Note: "I dunno" is not an acceptable answer.
Click to expand...
I think “dunno” is a much better answer than saying you have done an assessment and decided the risk of nuclear war or escalation is minimal.

If I want more military support for Ukraine or not is irrelevant, it is clear that the West is dragging its feet. Perhaps they have information that there is a risk of nuclear war or escalation, or perhaps they are eyeing up the economic opportunities of ‘helping’ Ukraine after the war with IMF loans and the usual ‘conditionality’ that includes privatisation, deregulation, and cuts to public spending that ultimately shifts currency from recipient to donor, and while a few rich people get richer, a lot of poor people get poorer.

Personally I think discussing economic rather than/ as well as military options might be a way forward, perhaps, just off the top of my head, a joint EU cooperation like building a railway from for example, Moscow to Berlin, providing work and economic benefit for local populations and trade and tourism opportunities along the way.
 
Last edited:
ks.234 said:
I think “dunno” is a much better answer than saying you have done an assessment and decided the risk of nuclear war or escalation is minimal.

If I want more military support for Ukraine or not is irrelevant, it is clear that the West is dragging its feet. Perhaps they have information that there is a risk of nuclear war or escalation, or perhaps they are eyeing up the economic opportunities of ‘helping’ Ukraine after the war with IMF loans and the usual ‘conditionality’ that includes privatisation, deregulation, and cuts to public spending that ultimately shifts currency from recipient to donor, and while a few rich people get richer, a lot of poor people get poorer.

Personally I think discussing economic rather than/ as well as military options might be a way forward, perhaps, just off the top of my head, a joint EU cooperation building a railway from for example, Moscow to Berlin, providing work and economic benefit for local populations and trade and tourism opportunities along the way.
Click to expand...
So your recommendation to get the combatants to the negotiating table in earnest is to offer beneficial economic development to both Ukraine and RF. That's a valid idea.

However, it has been tried for like 50 years. Germany, France, Italy and many other European countries have been pursuing a policy of economic engagement with USSR and then RF since the 1970s, with abundant funds and many, many joint economic development programs - hydrocarbons, of course, but also metals, minerals, aircraft, nuclear, shipbuilding, high tech, academic, space, art, etc. Literally trillions of dollars flowed from the West into RF and most large Western companies had active presence there, with tens of thousands (probably more) of Russians having well paying jobs with them.

The problem is it REALLY didn't work, as RF current government simply stole the money and used it to build up sort of a sorry army that it immediately started to use to inflict suffering on its closest neighbors and chew away ai their territory.

Can you explain (and not "off the top of your head") how your proposal will be different, provided you will be dealing with the same government? It CLEARLY isn't interested in economic development of RF and its people - so what economic goody can you offer Putin's gang to stop attacking their neighbors - and keep in mind they are all multi-billionairs.

P. S. There is already a railroad from Moscow to Berlin, and it looks nice.

https://www.expresstorussia.com/moscow-berlin-train.html#:~:text=The Moscow - Berlin Strizh train,Sunday and Monday from Berlin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strizh_(train)

P. P. S. The West is dragging its feet for several reasons, but the overall goal is to take the lowest risk path for us and give RF ample time and space for offrampinng (if they decide to), both at the expense of Ukraine's wellbeing.
 
^^^^^^^
Wagner mercenary contracts are usually very short.

As for destroying an Abrams or a Leopard tank - possible, but very hard. They are designed to withstand up to five direct hits from RF weapons in any single battle. I don't think the company will be paying out much (if they ever planned to). With Leopard repair depots ubiquitous around Europe, service should be fast and easy.

They could get lucky, like the Serb AD crew that manually downed an F117 during the Kosovo war. That probably would become the proudest moment for RF propaganda and an annual parade/reenactment will be held in Red Square.
 
Russia seems to have solved its prisons budget problem overnight. Previously they relied on a fairly slow rate of murder by fellow inmates and guards. This is bulk efficiency. I imagine though the ones who didn’t sign up are counting their lucky stars.

Putin obviously doesn’t care how this reflects on his nation of soulfulness- sending convicted thieves, murderers and rapists into a neighbouring country to rape , kill and plunder.
 
@DimitryZ

When I said that the end game will be US (or US coalition) troops on Red Square will be the end game, I was referring to your double-face and hypocrisy which is mincing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian best in order to win the war you can't afford (in human lives) to commit. Ukrainian army has no capacity to do so alone, no matter of HIMARS, Leopards, Abrams, whatever. If you want to make Russians surrend, you would need to take care of that yourself.

If you would have a grain of responsibily for this planet and human race, you would work towards peace, not victory.

As you are calling for concrete proposals, I would offer the Russians/Ukrainians the following:

0) Immediate cease of fire and withdrewal of troops.
1) Crimea - it's historically and demographically Russian anyway, 3 to 1 population. You would need to ethnically cleanse 1.5m people to make it Ukrainian. The same principle as Kosovo secession you supports.
2) Scorched lands (Lugansk, Donetsk etc), totally demilitarized and frozen for 10 years. To be decided later, giving the hostility both side showed (Ukr 14-22 and today, Russians 22-23) it should be IMHO some sort of international protectorate. Plus I don't see who's going to rebuild it.
3) Ukraine - EU yes, NATO no. Free to build its army however it wants. Guaranteed access and use of Black Sea (via Odessa or whatsoever).
4. War crimes tribunal, immediately
5) Lifting sanctions to Russia - only once it's fully democratized and dedicated to human freedoms/rights.

This plan will be massively rejected by both sides and I find that as a good starting point.
 
Ukraine hostility 14-22 ??? Where that come from? Like it was not enaugh to take Crimea, they also wanted to take what they hold now already in 14. Ukraine already was 8 years in defending war, holding on their own land.
 
anubisgrau said:
@DimitryZ

When I said that the end game will be US (or US coalition) troops on Red Square will be the end game, I was referring to your double-face and hypocrisy which is mincing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian best in order to win the war you can't afford (in human lives) to commit. Ukrainian army has no capacity to do so alone, no matter of HIMARS, Leopards, Abrams, whatever. If you want to make Russians surrend, you would need to take care of that yourself.

If you would have a grain of responsibily for this planet and human race, you would work towards peace, not victory.

As you are calling for concrete proposals, I would offer the Russians/Ukrainians the following:

0) Immediate cease of fire and withdrewal of troops.
1) Crimea - it's historically and demographically Russian anyway, 3 to 1 population. You would need to ethnically cleanse 1.5m people to make it Ukrainian. The same principle as Kosovo secession you supports.
2) Scorched lands (Lugansk, Donetsk etc), totally demilitarized and frozen for 10 years. To be decided later, giving the hostility both side showed (Ukr 14-22 and today, Russians 22-23) it should be IMHO some sort of international protectorate. Plus I don't see who's going to rebuild it.
3) Ukraine - EU yes, NATO no. Free to build its army however it wants. Guaranteed access and use of Black Sea (via Odessa or whatsoever).
4. War crimes tribunal, immediately
5) Lifting sanctions to Russia - only once it's fully democratized and dedicated to human freedoms/rights.

This plan will be massively rejected by both sides and I find that as a good starting point.
Click to expand...
I will neglect insults, which due to weakness of your arguments (such as they are) you dispense in my direction daily. I understand that is how you communicate.

Your plan is perfectly reasonable. It maybe acceptable to Ukraine with some alterations. The main sticking point that everyone who talks to Putin and his gang (Americans, Brits, French, even @anubisgrau ), the sticking point is your point (0). Putin is simply refusing to remove his troops from the Ukrainian ground they are holding since the second invasion in 2022. He already annexed it to Russia and REALLY, REALLY wants it for himself. A better deal was already offered and he refused. Hence the tanks.

So how do you propose to convince Russia to meet point (0)? @ks.234 proposes joint economic development, but since it actually has been tried for half a century with a resulting devastating war afterwards, it seems to have a very low chance of success.

What is your proposal, then? How do you convince the world's richest man with a nuclear button and questionable mental health to step back from "winnings" he considers his rightful "prize?"

Your last sentence seems counterproductive. I was asking for a set of proposals that would lead to an end to the war or at least a ceasefire, not be "massively rejected." I am not sure you understand, but the key here is to find proposals that would be interesting enough to both parties to at least hold an initial set of talks now.

I am not very interested in what YOU find "a good proposal," but what Ukraine and RF may find at least interesting. Any idea?
 
Re: insults whatsoever, I didn't mean anything personal - you ain't so powerful anyway - I was referring to US policies of no bodybags with US citizens in the war at the ultimate enemy. That's all.

Hope we are moving to some kind of reasonable communication here, I will write tomorrow. Too late here. Best, G.
 
anubisgrau said:
Re: insults whatsoever, I didn't mean anything personal - you ain't so powerful anyway - I was referring to US policies of no bodybags with US citizens in the war at the ultimate enemy. That's all.

Hope we are moving to some kind of reasonable communication here, I will write tomorrow. Too late here. Best, G.
Click to expand...
I am certainly very much against any deployment of US troops into this conflict unless article 5 is envoked by one of the NATO members. So your projection of US invading Russian Federation is highly, highly unlikely to come true. Maybe it's not a prediction but more of a recommendation?
 
DimitryZ said:
…
What is your proposal, then? How do you convince the world's richest man with a nuclear button and questionable mental health to step back from "winnings" he considers his rightful "prize?"…
Click to expand...

One way to tempt a tyrant who wants to hold onto his “winnings” is to offer substitute “winnings” of greater perceived value in exchange. Unfortunately, this rewards bad behavior, legitimizes the original ill gotten gains, and encourages future attempts at winning concessions through military force.

Another way is to threaten nuclear war and actually mean it. Give the madman a deadline for withdrawal, then launch if he doesn’t. Unfortunately, this approach makes the planet uninhabitable.

If appeasement and all-out war aren’t the answers, then I see only one option left, and it’s what’s happening today: a limited war of attrition aimed at maximizing Russia’s cost. It’s not a great option, and it means the war could drag on for years. It also doesn’t eliminate the possibility of nuclear war, but keeps the odds relatively low.

IMO, like Korea, this war doesn’t end. Over time, Ukrainian air defenses will get stronger and Russian missile attacks will be less and less effective. The border will become so heavily fortified that further land grabs will become too costly. Lastly, like North Korea, Russia will be off-limits for Westerners (and Western investment) for the foreseeable future.
 
Peace will become possible when both sides are feeling enough pain that the cease-fire deal they think they can get starts to look preferable. At the moment Putin figures his tolerance for Russia's pain is so great he can win with it, and the Ukrainians figure what Putin wants is worse than fighting on.
 
Peace may become possible when the Russians (and or their military) have had enough and Putin cuts his throat whilst shaving and trips downstairs. The problem may then be how many Putins are waiting in the wings to take over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top