Ukraine

[Hawki]

Looks at posts...

Okay, to be fair, how else is the war going to end apart from a peace settlement of some kind? It's not as if Ukraine can push onto Russia, and considering that Russia is a nuclear power, it would arguably be suicide to do so.

What form that setlement would/should take is not for me to decide, but I'm not sure how else the war could end.

 

[dreng3]

Looks at posts...

Okay, to be fair, how else is the war going to end apart from a peace settlement of some kind? It's not as if Ukraine can push onto Russia, and considering that Russia is a nuclear power, it would arguably be suicide to do so.

What form that setlement would/should take is not for me to decide, but I'm not sure how else the war could end.

It could end up being a Korea-situation, with a DMZ between the two countries, an armistice agreement, and cessation of active conflict but no peace agreement.

 

[Silvanus]

Are you proposing a referendum? Because the current government of Ukraine is not the same thing as "Ukraine".

Not even sure what the point being made here is. You obviously know it would be impossible to run a referendum on whether to fight back as they're being invaded.

Is the point just to insinuate that the average people of Ukraine would much rather capitulate to Russian annexation instead of fighting?

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Looks at posts...

Okay, to be fair, how else is the war going to end apart from a peace settlement of some kind? It's not as if Ukraine can push onto Russia, and considering that Russia is a nuclear power, it would arguably be suicide to do so.

What form that setlement would/should take is not for me to decide, but I'm not sure how else the war could end.

I don't think anyone wants Ukraine to march into Russia, least of all the Ukrainians themselves. I think when it comes to the actual conditions of an end to the war, the rest of the world maintaining pressure on Russia is as important as the Ukraine military pushing back against the invasion. The least that should be expected of Russia is a conditionless withdrawal from Ukraine, conditionless here meaning that they recognize Donetzk and Luhansk as rightful parts of Ukraine. Just from my personal sense of justice, I think Russia should also be made to recognize that the war is their sole responsibility and agree to pay reparations for it. I'm not sure if the current sanctions provide enough leverage to reasonably make demands like that.

Pragmatically speaking, lasting peace in Europe would require a regime change and demilitarization in Russia but I don't think either are really one the table. I doubt Russia's gonna give up its imperialist ambitions under the current leadership, which means it's a matter of time until they'll try for another invasion.

 

[Agema]

Looks at posts...

Okay, to be fair, how else is the war going to end apart from a peace settlement of some kind? It's not as if Ukraine can push onto Russia, and considering that Russia is a nuclear power, it would arguably be suicide to do so.

At the current rate, it'll probably end at something close to status quo ante bellum.

Fundamentally, I don't think Ukraine can retake Crimea by force never mind invade Russia, so its best likely result is winning back total control of Donbas. It's possible that if Russia is in real trouble, it may also agree some form of reparations, particularly if linked to the end of sanctions. I don't see Russia surrendering Crimea for anything - it would probably take some sort of critical collapse before that could happen.

Russia might still win a total victory, although it looks very unlikely given its performance to date. Chances are its best result is prising the two Donbas oblasts out of Ukraine's hands (and formal concession of Crimea), although the remainder of Ukraine will almost certainly decisively turn to the EU & NATO.

 

[Agema]

Speaking as someone who hails from a conservative school of thought, it's long been known that there are people on the right who have politics no more complex than "My country is always right" or "Anything done by a nominally conservative leader is defensible when the rubber hits the road."
I think we should also acknowledge, just as strongly, that there exist an equal and opposite way of thinking. The "Anything that opposes my country is good because my country has done/does bad things."
I do not think Dr. Chomsky is an unprincipled man. It's just that his principles aren't particularly nuanced. Or intelligent. Ukraine (largely) wants to align with the West and against Russia. This is bad because the West is bad and therefore it's wrong to encourage Ukraine to keep fighting rather than just rolling over to Russia or "negotiating" with Russia.

I think people of Chomsky's persuasion have another problem - they are so fixated on the flaws of their country (and its economic / political system) that they have blinded themselves to the fact that other people might view it positively, and/or just how bad the alternatives can be.

If you speak to Eastern Europeans who experienced Communism, many of them have lived experience of what the alternative can be. We should not be surprised that the USA looks like a much more attractive alternative to many. I cannot help but feel Chomsky et alia might intellectually understand how bad illiberal autocracy can be, but they don't really feel it or give it the weight it should merit. I think this is partly why they need to pretend that no-one would choose the US model out of free will, the USA has to trick them into it.

 

[Hades]

Negotiating a peaceful settlement.

Its kinda hard to arrange a peaceful settlement with an entity that has the starting point that your country shouldn't exist, that beliefs of your countries independence are ''nazi ideology'' and that the citizens of your country should be brutalized and punished for ''betraying'' Russia.

Because with a starting point like that any compromise would be a defeat. Because in Russia's view Ukraine just existing is an injustice that requires correcting.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That works wonders for Czechoslovakia at the lead up to ww2. Also by your logic the USSR should've allow the nazi to take them over.

Interestingly, the USSR existed in the first place because the people of Russia refused to continue fighting World War 1. But anyway, a peaceful settlement without takeover is evidently available for Ukraine, though that becomes less and less likely the longer the war lasts. Sooner or later there will be some kind of settlement unless our leaders in their infinite wisdom decide to blow up the world before it happens. The question is whether you want peace with Russia before further death and destruction or after it.

They are. But since they don't want to give everything Russia is asking for Russia keeps on killing Ukrainians.

Yes, that tends to be how war works usually. Though I suppose one might be forgiven for forgetting that given how often the world's leading belligerent the United States seems to kill people irrespective of whether they get what they ask for.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Its kinda hard to arrange a peaceful settlement with an entity that has the starting point that your country shouldn't exist

That's not the starting point. Implementing the Minsk agreement with respect to autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk, renouncing claim on the Crimea, and Ukrainian neutrality are the starting point. If you invent scenarios where diplomacy is kinda hard, then it will be kinda hard in your invented scenario.

 

[Hades]

That's not the starting point.

It is the starting point. Putin has said word for word, in an official speech on national and international television that Ukraine should never have existed. There's also that creepy ''what to do with Ukraine'' article by Russian state media that claims that Ukraine as a concept is a sign of nazi ideology that must be destroyed. That recent article also states that the so called ''neutrality'' is impossible and that Russia should take full control of Ukraine.

Any of those points you mentioned and Russia pretends to care about can only be considered as temporary steps in the plan to completely annex Ukraine back into Russia. The statements of both Putin and his pets in the Russian media do not allow for another outcome on Russia's terms.

 

[Agema]

That's not the starting point. Implementing the Minsk agreement with respect to autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk, renouncing claim on the Crimea, and Ukrainian neutrality are the starting point. If you invent scenarios where diplomacy is kinda hard, then it will be kinda hard in your invented scenario.

So, the start point is accepting Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, accepting Russia's incitement of rebellion and further dismemberment of Ukraine, and accepting Russian control of Ukrainian foreign policy.

That's the "start" point, is it? Giving Russia pretty much everything it wants, because it was prepared to invade a country (three times) to get it?

 

[Silvanus]

That's not the starting point. Implementing the Minsk agreement with respect to autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk, renouncing claim on the Crimea, and Ukrainian neutrality are the starting point.

Russian state media has explicitly stated that Ukrainian neutrality is unacceptable to them.

 

[Trunkage]

I think people of Chomsky's persuasion have another problem - they are so fixated on the flaws of their country (and its economic / political system) that they have blinded themselves to the fact that other people might view it positively, and/or just how bad the alternatives can be.

If you speak to Eastern Europeans who experienced Communism, many of them have lived experience of what the alternative can be. We should not be surprised that the USA looks like a much more attractive alternative to many. I cannot help but feel Chomsky et alia might intellectually understand how bad illiberal autocracy can be, but they don't really feel it or give it the weight it should merit. I think this is partly why they need to pretend that no-one would choose the US model out of free will, the USA has to trick them into it.

I think it's a mistake to think that, if Russia overtook Eastern Europe, they would be treated as nicely as under the Soviets

This is not meant to praise Soviets in any shape or form. People keep comparing Putin to the USSR and I think he's more aiming for tsarist Russia. Which was generally even more draconian and repressive than the Soviets

 

[Generals]

how war works usually. Though I suppose one might be forgiven for forgetting that given how often the world's leading belligerent the United States seems to kill people irrespective of whether they get what they ask for.

So your definition of "negotiating peace" is Ukraine capitulating and giving Russia everything they want? I doubt the US would kill people if they got everything they wanted. That's nonsensical. But maybe, just maybe, like Russia the US lies for PR and they claim they are after "X" while actually being after "X,Y and Z".

But anyway, a peaceful settlement without takeover is evidently available for Ukraine, though that becomes less and less likely the longer the war lasts

You're totally wrong. The only reason why a settlement without total takeover is even on the table is because Ukraine fought back and resisted. Russia wanted to take Ukraine in its entirety, why else did they invade from every direction?
It's because such a victory has become impossible they decided to redirect their efforts on the East. It's quite clear the more Ukraine resists the less they will have to give in for peace. So the longer it lasts the best it is for Ukraine independence. Obviously a long war is not desirable but Putin has made it clear only military resistance matters in negotiations.

 

[Agema]

This is not meant to praise Soviets in any shape or form. People keep comparing Putin to the USSR and I think he's more aiming for tsarist Russia. Which was generally even more draconian and repressive than the Soviets

Maybe. Tsarist Russia was earlier than the USSR, and so the Communists were perhaps in ways more enlightened simply by being more modern. However, in terms of repression, I don't think they changed very much and it seems to me the USSR pretty much just continued all the same habits of the Russian Empire: strict political and ideological regulations, pervasive and heavy secret police, Siberian exile, etc.

That said, I think you are right in a sense. Russia surely would not hope to expand beyond Soviet borders, but in order to drum the Baltic States and Ukraine into line, it would have to carry out staggering repression - effectively, to aggressively wipe out their national character and Russify them. At worst, of course, they could just be deported and scattered to distant parts of Russia, then repopulated by loyal Russians.

In terms of the latter, there have been reports of Ukrainians forcibly removed from the Donbas by Russia, potentially in the hundreds of thousands. This could easily be de facto ethnic cleansing. If we imagine that at some point Russia does manage to get a referendum in the Donbas states, if it has removed a huge chunk of the Ukrainian (loyalist) population to refugee camps or resettlement elsewhere, it is vastly more likely pro-Russian separatists will win any subsequent votes without needing to rig the vote at the ballot box, and effectively take those areas over. Which I'm sure Seanchaidh would praise as a great victory for democracy and fairness.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Russia has defaulted on its foreign debt, says S&P

I'm not an expert on the economy but this is really bad for them, isn't it.

 

[Generals]

Russia has defaulted on its foreign debt, says S&P

I'm not an expert on the economy but this is really bad for them, isn't it.

Yes and no. Russia didn't rely on debt that much and with all the sanctions it's facing it's not like they would have had an easy time finding financing anyway.
It's obviously not good but probably not as bad as a country like the US defaulting.

 

[Silvanus]

You're totally wrong. The only reason why a settlement without total takeover is even on the table is because Ukraine fought back and resisted. Russia wanted to take Ukraine in its entirety, why else did they invade from every direction?

To add to this: Russian soldiers have been quite open to people in occupied towns that their instructions were to take Kyiv. Russian state media has been extolling the need to destroy the Ukrainian state in entirety.

The only reason their aims have shifted to Donbas alone is because of continued resistance beyond Russian expectation.

 

[Hades]

Russia having revealed that their end goal is the destruction, ethic cleansing and annexation of Ukraine makes a ''settlement'' about things like neutrality and Donbas untenable for both parties.

Russia can't accept because if you want the entirety of Ukraine to restore Russian prestige, and if you think Ukrainian existence is an insult to Russia then only getting the Donbas after being militarily humiliated would be a complete defeat, and only a temporal arrangement until they can try again.

And for Ukraine all those settlements would be an existential danger. If they give up the Donbas then Russia will be given a staging ground for their next inevitable attempt to destroy Ukraine. If they pledge to be ''neutral'' it just means they stand on their own when Russia invades again(which they will since Russia has stated that a neutral Ukraine is unacceptable), and if Ukraine is demilitarized they'll be defenseless.

Russia cannot accept a settlement because that would upset their imperial vanity, and Ukraine can't accept a settlement when Russia remains an untrustworthy entity that seeks to destroy them.

 

[Chimpzy]

Wonderful clip of Maria Zakharova, Russian chief propagandist. So apparently this whole thing isn't about nato agression, or nazis, or biolabs, or whatever.

Nah, it's cuz the Ukrainians wouldn't share borsht recipes. Maybe, unclear. Like much Russian communication these days, it sounds confused and not a little bit shitfaced.