↪boethius ... which has nothing to do with the use of nukes against Ukraine. Thank you for your constant obfuscation. — Olivier5

I just explained exactly how it had to do with Nukes. I can explain it again if you want.

Already the threat of nuclear war precluded NATO boots on the ground and planes in the air (the common sense way to "defend freedom and democracy" a la WWII, which is the West's own preferred analogy). Of the arms and intelligence support Ukraine has gotten ... why only HIMARS now? ... and not literally the first day of the war?

The answer is because HIMARS can be introduced now maintaining a Russian win.

NATO is quite upfront that their goals is to bleed the Russians, not that Ukraine "win's", hence the concept of a "strategic defeat" in the context of a war that you win needed to be developed.

All of these policies and decisions have to do with Nuclear weapons. If the same war fervour developed in pre-nuclear Europe and USA there would already be a continental scale war rapidly escalating into into a global war. What puts the brakes on that process is the prospect of nuclear escalation.

Until or if Putin can threaten/force Sweden/Finland sufficiently, they'll be parts of NATO defense, unlike Ukraine. As it stands, I don't think Putin and team really have the extra resources. Rattling the nukes brought some additional attention onto them. (Might not be the best for them?) Russia threatens, invades Ukraine, threatens a bit, dismisses a bit, two other neighbors set to join NATO, ... — jorndoe

Finland and Sweden joining NATO is not some sort of Ukrainian victory.

Honestly seems a bit insulting to Ukrainians that Finland and Sweden "get to join", having not been asking or wanting to for decades, while for a decade and a half it NATO membership was dangled in front of Ukraine but ... ah, ah, ah, one can look but one must never touch the NATO membership.

The most annoying part of that hypocrisy is that Western media frame the "expansion" of NATO Eastward as not-an-expansion as it was just countries joining out of their own volition, NATO agency and planning had nothing to do with it. But ... again ... why not Ukraine? They wanted to be let in too?

As for Finland and Sweden joining NATO, this has basically zero consequence on anything, at least in the short term. NATO's policy is clearly no direct engagement with Russia and Finland and Sweden joining NATO doesn't change that. It would matter if Russia was planning to invade Finland and Sweden, but there's zero evidence of that and, again, the most annoying hypocrisy that Russia not fully defeating Ukraine in 3 days demonstrates it's a incompetent and nothing-to-worry about force ... but we also need to be so worried as to run to NATO for protection?!

Finland and Sweden are a PR victory to sell Westerners the idea we "stood up to Putin", but there's no evidence that the Kremlin cares about Finland being in NATO or not. Of course, if there's a full scale war, it's strategically inconvenient, but if that's nuclear armageddon anyways ... it doesn't matter all that much.

Framed as a Russia vs NATO conflict ... Finland and Sweden joining NATO is terrible blow.

However, framed as a Russia vs Ukraine conflict--concerning spheres of influence in Russia speaking places (which Finland and Sweden don't have any of), and about oil and natural gas (which Finland and Sweden don't have any of) and black sea port and transcontinental pipelines (which Finland and Sweden don't have any of)--and there's no intention nor much stock put in the idea of a full scale war with NATO, then the whole Finland and Sweden joining NATO is at best meaningless and at worse just rubbing it in Ukrainian faces that they're not valuable enough to be in our little club (but we totally lead them on about for nearly 2 decades anyways just to see what would happen).

I just explained exactly how it had to do with Nukes. I can explain it again if you want.

Already the threat of nuclear war precluded NATO boots on the ground and planes in the air (the common sense way to "defend freedom and democracy" a la WWII, which is the West's own preferred analogy). — boethius

WWII is Putin's favorite analogy. He sees Nazis everywhere.

But this has nothing to do with the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. The reason Biden is being cautious is because he wants to avoid WWIII, i.e. a war between Russia and NATO.

I think even you can understand the difference between WWIII and the use of nukes against Ukraine. Those are two very different hypotheses.

Of the arms and intelligence support Ukraine has gotten ... why only HIMARS now? ... and not literally the first day of the war?

The answer is because HIMARS can be introduced now maintaining a Russian win.

That's the paranoid answer, but it's not the only one.

The most annoying part of that hypocrisy is that Western media frame the "expansion" of NATO Eastward as not-an-expansion as it was just countries joining out of their own volition, NATO agency and planning had nothing to do with it. But ... again ... why not Ukraine? They wanted to be let in too? — boethius

The funniest part of your hypocrisy is that you see NATO as not expansionist enough. You are asking: why don't they expand to Ukraine?, while in the same para you reproach them for their covert expansionism... :groan:

For a good review on the HIMARS: (put on the automatic translation)


https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/07/19/en-ukraine-la-logistique-militaire-russe-perturbee-par-des-missiles-americains-himars_6135351_3210.html

But this has nothing to do with the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. The reason Biden is being cautious is because he wants to avoid WWIII, i.e. a war between Russia and NATO.

I think even you can understand the difference between WWIII and the use of nukes against Ukraine. Those are two very different hypotheses. — Olivier5

Nukes in Ukraine is the start of an escalation pathway to WWIII, also just makes the world generally more unstable and WWIII more likely people seeing nukes being used and "in play" so to speak, makes everyone else on a hair trigger.

But it's not just WWIII, breaking the nuclear taboo is bad for USA, as it reduces their conventional force relative power if people have and are willing to use nukes to strike carrier groups; and as nuclear proliferation continues, which the actual use of nuclear weapon would super charge, it increases the probability of state and non-state actors willing to use Nukes against the USA in "self defence" and simply not caring if USA nukes them back ... which USA may not actually do (nuke cities in retaliation for nuking a carrier group).

That's the paranoid answer, but it's not the only one. — Olivier5

Paranoid how? If it was a moral imperative to supply Ukraine and defeat Russia, then you want to send in all the weapons systems day one, not supply only shoulder mounted missiles, hype the shit out of them, and then when that doesn't actually "defeat Russia" and Ukraine is insisting on heavier weapons, send in the excess soviet stuff lying around, hype the shit out of ex-soviet state bravery to dump all that in Ukraine (and get replacements from US), then send in a few M777's, more sophisticated anti-air systems, hype the shit out of those ... also what happened to the switch blades ... and then literally 5 months later when all those weapons failed to "win" supply 9 HIMARS in a show of "we care".

It's just the obvious truth. NATO could do way, way more than it has done even just in weapons supply (not to mention a no-fly zone or boots on the ground). It doesn't do more.

Well why? Why do just enough so Ukraine doesn't completely collapse but not enough to even credibly say you are trying to support Ukraine to the win?

The funniest part of your hypocrisy is that you see NATO as not expansionist enough. You are asking: why don't they expand to Ukraine? — Olivier5

Yes, a midnight deal to put Ukraine into NATO, dare the Russians to attack, would at least be coherent with the view that Ukrainian sovereignty is a moral imperative, and I would have respected such a move.

Maybe I'd be dead in a nuclear fire, but I'd be burning with a minimum respect for the people who triggered WWIII. They said they cared about Ukrainian sovereignty and they fucking followed through.

Now, pointing out I'd respect such a move more than dangling NATO in front of Ukraine, giving them a false sense of security, leading directly to this disastrous war, doesn't mean I think that was the best choice.

However, had NATO (or even just the US and UK on their lonesome) put Ukraine under their nuclear umbrella before the war, obviously it would have ben a ballsy move I could respect, in the sort of insane ballsy cowboy, staring down them mine shaft boys sort of way. And maybe it would have worked, that Russia would have backed off, or then some diplomatic resolution from a hard negotiating position, but giving Russia Nord Stream 2, a bunch of other concessions to accept Ukraine in NATO.

Would have maybe avoided the war, avoided the food crisis, avoided the energy crisis.

Of course, American's don't have the fucking balls, nor give a shit about Ukrainians at the end of the day.

What's left?

Pawns.

Pawns in the rain.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... private equity laundering money off the shoulder of Angola ... I watched I-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.

... All those moments ...

!! In my new book !!!

Maybe I'd be dead in a nuclear fire, but I'd be burning with a minimum respect for the people who triggered WWIII. They said they cared about Ukrainian sovereignty and they fucking followed through. — boethius

You're bat shit crazy.

You're bat shit crazy. — Olivier5

I'll explain it again (I don't expect for your benefit, but perhaps others).

Consider these positions:

1. Ukraine has a right to join NATO and NATO was right to invite Ukraine to join, extend a hand as friends do.

2. Ukraine joining NATO would obviously have significant risk of WWIII and thus it is right that NATO never let Ukraine actually join over nearly 2 decades of talking about it.

The simultaneous praise of NATO defending Ukrainian sovereignty to join NATO as well as the "level headed" evaluation that Ukraine must never join NATO to avoid risk WWIII, are simply incompatible positions.

The only logic where these position make sense is if the goal is to bait the Ukrainians into a war with Russia by giving them a false sense of security and that their elites, and large part of their population, can simply ignore diplomacy with Russia and more-or-less just flip them off, as "NATO's got their back".

However, had NATO actually followed through on it's word (or simply US and UK in a separate nuclear umbrella alliance), actually cohered with point 1 above, then it would be a bold move but war would very unlikely and other things could be offered to Russia to compensate Ukraine in NATO. For, Russia doesn't want WWIII either (if they did ... we'd already be dead).

So, the crisis would have been extremely intense, but likely less actual risk of WWIII than the current situation, and no actual war in Ukraine, no food and energy crisis.

Now, if Ukraine joining NATO would potentially cause WWIII and "everybody knows that" so Finland Sweden can join a weak after changing their minds about it, but Ukraine: No Ukraine, No, Bad Ukraine, No NATO for you!

Then why state Ukraine will eventually join NATO multiple times, start NATO "partnership" and military training and collaboration, as official NATO policy ... without ever the intention for Ukraine to actually join NATO.

If the position is "Ukraine can't join NATO, everybody knows that!" what was the purpose of NATO playing footsie with Ukraine for nearly 2 decades?

More importantly, this half-asked support for Ukraine is more likely to lead to WWIII than simply a midnight deal (even in the days before the war) of US placing Ukraine in a defensive pact.

The current trajectory profoundly destabilises the entire global political system.

The consequences are completely unpredictable, not just the war in Ukraine and its regional implications, but the consequences of the added food and fuel crisis during an inflation crisis and negative consequences of Covid policies (which, whether you evaluate them as "justified" in themselves, the price is a seriously weakened political and economic system globally, in which the amplification by the current war must be taken into account in the risk-benefit analysis--and, regardless of the analysis, recovering from the pandemic is not "the best time" for the sort of war in Ukraine).

This sort of chain of overlaying crisis is what collapses systems.

Resources (both mental and physical) are only available to deal with a limited amount of crisis at a time. Multiple crisis at some point overwhelms a system's ability to interpret what is happening in a remotely accurate way, and no further effective decisions can be made even if suddenly elites genuinely want to "fix things" (which is also not a given).

And all this is information known to NATO planners and decision makers.

Bleeding out the Russians and trying to collapse the Russian economy, obviously has certain consequences: war of sanctions (ah, sorry it's "weaponising exports" and not tit-for-tat sanctions when Russia does it), obstructing food exports that obviously comes with a protracted war (during a global drought!?!), advanced weapons flooding into the black market, all of which destabilises profoundly the whole global system.

A profound destabilisation that makes WWIII certainly more likely than not-dumping-weapons-in-Ukraine and supplying intelligence, and, I would argue, more likely than had US done a midnight deal to "#stand with Ukraine" and "#believe Ukraine". Had US sent boots on the ground and "stood up to Putin" a war would be less likely, diplomatic solution more likely (such as giving Russia Nord Stream 2, other concessions needed to avoid a war). Of course, you can say that's not a good idea as there's still a chance of WWIII in such a tense standoff ... ok, but then in that logic the current policy is no more defendable and arguably increases likelihood of WWIII even more.

Nice post, some interesting points.

Though, I don't think the idea of a "midnight deal" with Ukraine would have been very realistic. Ukraine is one of Russia's primary foreign policy interests - the country and its institutions are likely soaked with Russian intelligence operatives.

Had the United States gone flirting with Ukraine in such a way, it would have likely caused Russia to attack sooner in an attempt to pre-empt it, just like it did now.

Furthermore, NATO is at least on paper a defensive alliance. While the United States is by far the most dominant partner in the alliance, such a move would greatly damage NATO's legitimacy even to its own members.


For the United States and Ukraine to enter into a pact bilaterally I think is equally unlikely, not to mention not very convincing.

For one, such a pact would essentially tie the fate of America to the fate of Ukraine. That's a lot of power and leverage to give to a country that the United States is obviously not prepared to wage large-scale/nuclear war for.

Second, Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep, whereas 9,000 kilometers and an ocean seperate Ukraine and the United States. In the unlikely event that the United States would commit to defending Ukraine with conventional means, by the time it arrives the battle would have been over. The Baltic States suffer from the same strategic problem.

And where would the US land its troops? If NATO is not involved, Europe is not a likely possibility without dragging it into the war. Southern Ukraine would likely fall in days, not to mention landing troops under the Russian missile umbrella seems unappetizing.


In other words, in the face of permanently losing control over Ukraine, Russia would likely not take such guarantees from the United States seriously and invade anyway, calling the United States' bluff.

These are just empty speculations. I'm not interested in your FSB-sponsored confusion, nor in your wet dreams of nuclear holocaust.

just empty speculations — Olivier5

...

FSB-sponsored — Olivier5

...

You write your own material, it's brilliant.

Via Financial Times:

Ukraine war news from February 25: Kyiv suburbs breached, Russian forces face resistance, Zelensky warns Russia will ‘storm’ capital (Feb 25, 2022)

Via Reuters:

Russia declares expanded war goals beyond Ukraine's Donbas (Jul 20, 2022)

Via The Guardian:

Today, we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield. What can you say? Let them try. We have heard many times that the west wants to fight us to the last Ukrainian. This is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, but it seems that everything is heading towards this. — Vladimir Putin (Jul 8, 2022)

Russia’s potential is so great that only a small portion of it is being used in the special operation. — Dmitry Peskov (Jul 8, 2022)

If the west doesn’t want talks to take place but wishes for Ukraine to defeat Russia on the battlefield – because both views have been expressed – then perhaps there is nothing to talk about with the west. — Sergei Lavrov (Jul 8, 2022)

Lavrov walks out of G20 talks after denying Russia is causing food crisis (Jul 8, 2022)
^{Russian foreign minister accuses the west of frenzied criticism over his country’s invasion of Ukraine}

The Ukrainians still want the invaders to leave. Ukraine has supporters that Russia doesn't. What Putin and Peskov nonchalantly call "the battlefield" is Ukraine. Putin's team went theatrical.

Just saw an interview with a Danish reporter in Odessa (Jul 20, 2022):
Whether exaggerated or not, Pesky's (bombastic) statement has truth to it: Russia has an inherent upper hand here due to amount of resources, location, size, and Russia isn't being invaded, don't recall anyone having threatened to do so here.
The reporter had asked a number of Ukrainians what they thought of statements like those quoted, and they all just shrugged at them, responding that nothing coming out of those people can be trusted.

"special operation" = (attempted) land-grab

The reporter had asked a number of Ukrainians what they thought of statements like those quoted, and they all just shrugged at them, responding that nothing coming out of those people can be trusted. — jorndoe

How is this even relevant? A bunch of nobodies telling us politicians can't be trusted? I'm shocked. Now go back to those quotes and explain why they aren't true instead of dismissing it as theatrics. And if you can't manage that consider what the implications are if they are true. Nothing in your post is interesting politically or philosophically without a bit of legwork - I don't think anybody here needs a biased news aggregator.

, what, challenging "the west" to shoot it out on "the battlefield"? Boasting military prowess? Walking out on a top meeting? Shutting down talks? All the while bombing the Ukrainians and announcing a larger "special operation"...? :D Get real. There's been comments in the thread already.

Yeah

"special operation" = (attempted) land-grab

^{(Besides, those magnificent Ukrainian fields, those militarily and economically advantageous Black Sea shores, in "the right hands", connecting the Moldovian "resistance" with Father Kremlin, ... Just divert attention, shut down other voices at home, and roll the dice.)}

Lose sight of ...

The Ukrainians still want the invaders to leave. Ukraine has supporters that Russia doesn't. What Putin and Peskov nonchalantly call "the battlefield" is Ukraine. Putin's team went theatrical.

... and you lose sight of the basics. And that's that. You don't get to invade, bomb, try to take over, and think no one will notice.

By the way, those "nobodys" (a country of "dumb automatons" apparently (racism aside)) confirm what's been argued in the thread already. Not new or anything.

This stuff isn't floating in a vacuum. Coming up on 300 pages. :o

what, challenging "the west" to shoot it out on "the battlefield"? Boasting military prowess? Walking out on a top meeting? Shutting down talks? All the while bombing the Ukrainians and announcing a larger "special operation"...? :D Get real. There's been comments in the thread already. — jorndoe

Are you seriously suggesting that it's a mysterious concept to you that newspapers can give a biased impression of events without actually lying?

I can't believe you're so naive as to think that a selection of true and real happenings accurately represent the entirety of what's going on?

So perhaps dispense with the faux surprise that someone would call you out on it.

Though, I don't think the idea of a "midnight deal" with Ukraine would have been very realistic. — Tzeentch

Obviously not. I develop the possibility to simply underline that the proposed moral imperatives to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, Ukraines's "right to join NATO", and defending freedom and so on, are obviously not the guiding principles of NATO or US foreign policy vis-a-vis Ukraine.

They say these things, but they are obviously not true.

Ukraine is one of Russia's primary foreign policy interests - the country and its institutions are likely soaked with Russian intelligence operatives. — Tzeentch

Although I agree with these statements, I would disagree that somehow Russia would have thwarted Ukraine joining NATO (in nearly 2 decades of talking about it). If Russia had that power, the 2014 coup would not have happened, and if it did anyway, Russia would have reversed it.

Ukraine even put in their constitution the aspiration to join NATO, and Zelensky tells the story of going to NATO and asking "are we there yet" a bunch of times.

Furthermore, NATO is at least on paper a defensive alliance. While the United States is by far the most dominant partner in the alliance, such a move would greatly damage NATO's legitimacy even to its own members. — Tzeentch

Ukraine joining NATO would have just been for Ukraine's defence. Obviously it is provocative to Russia and could trigger a war ... but a defensive war from NATO's point of view. NATO apologists even today argue that expanding East, including the "partnership" with Ukraine is all purely defensive and therefore not aggressive, missiles in East Europe are to defend against Iran etc. and therefore NATO is in no way responsible for the Ukrainian war and did not "provoke" Russia.

Again, just begs the question that if it was so obvious to everyone that Ukraine will never join NATO, why does NATO state Ukraine will join NATO and build military partnership and so on, if there's no intention to every follow through?

For the United States and Ukraine to enter into a pact bilaterally I think is equally unlikely, not to mention not very convincing. — Tzeentch

The point of mentioning the bilateral possibility is just to prebuttal the excuse that joining NATO would be a long process in which Ukraine would be invaded.

US has zero problem with unilateral actions that upset their allies when it wants; just throws some freedom fries at the detractors and calls them names.

And, the double standard, UK rushes over to Finland to offer bilateral security commitment of some form to cover the NATO "ascension" process.

The reason the bilateral option is the exact same analysis is because it's US policy to say Ukraine can join NATO and Ukrainian sovereignty is so important and so on, without doing what coheres to such statements.

Second, Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep, whereas 9,000 kilometers and an ocean seperate Ukraine and the United States. In the unlikely event that the United States would commit to defending Ukraine with conventional means, by the time it arrives the battle would have been over. The Baltic States suffer from the same strategic problem. — Tzeentch

The current war is approaching half a year ... so I don't see how the US could not show up in this time frame.

However, the point of an defensive alliance pact with Ukraine and sending boots on the ground and planes into Ukrainian airspace to defend Ukraine, is because (before the war) it puts Russia in the position of attacking American troops directly in a war of aggression, which risks nuclear escalation.

In terms of conventional military terms.

Obviously, the US directly intervening would be a significant increase the force compared to just Ukraine, it would optimise in a whole bunch of ways the effectiveness of Ukrainian troops.

In terms of conventional military analysis, there are high risks on both sides.

One may argue that if Ukraine has been able to compete by itself and arms supplies, that Ukraine + US would easily win.

The problem with that argument would be that Russia has not fully mobilised, and is only committing enough troops and resources to win while trying to minimise political and economic risks.

However, if US were to send boots on the ground in Ukraine, full mobilisation would be a likely result. So, such a scenario is quite far from the current situation.

If diplomacy failed and Russia to conventionally attack in this scenario, taking land would not be a big priority in the first phase of the way.

The big stakes would be air power.

No one knows (not even the engineers and commanders and pilots) what the effectiveness of stealth planes would be in a full scale air war. If it's highly effective, Russian air power and air defence would be completely humiliated. If it's not highly effective, the US would be humiliated.

Likewise, no one knows how effective US air defence would be in a full scale war.

Russia would of course hesitate to invade, things would be insanely intense, and there would be an attempt at a diplomatic resolution.

In strategic terms, there's lot's to debate, however, the real reason it did not happen and was never even a credible possibility for everyone is:

1. USA has no genuine interest in Ukrainian sovereignty, defending freedom and all that (it's purely propaganda to sell the intervention part of the policy, supplying arms, and then the "duh, get real, we won't actually defend Ukrainian sovereignty we're just saying we care to bleed the Russians" position is explained to answer the question of why not do more).

2. USA has no genuine interest in a diplomatic resolution to have avoided or then resolve anytime since the start of the war.

3. USA does not have the diplomatic statespeopleship or sufficient cognitive level of governance processes to conduct a high stakes, skin in the game, standoff strategy and concurrent diplomacy required for a Cuban missile crisis style move (which saw the US directly embargoing Russian ships and a military standoff in the Atlantic, very close the WWIII, but a diplomatic resolution as neither the US nor the Russians actually want WWIII). You would need actual non-corrupt politicians that at least genuinely believe what they are saying, and are actually focused on governance rather than their stock portfolio, and aren't older than the life expectancy of the country they are governing, for such strategic moves to even be contemplated seriously to begin with.

The point of developing the this scenario is to simply point out that there were options available if Ukrainian sovereignty and Ukrainian lives and drawing the line on Russian expansionism, was actually a priority.

It's "not realistic" for Ukraine to "actually" be defended by its "friends" is an argument that attempts to cover for the fact Ukraine is not a priority, Ukrainian lives don't matter, and "stopping Russia" is insofar as Ukrainians are dying to slow Russia down and not a serious undertaking.

However, the idea it's not realistic simply begs the question of why NATO stated Ukraine would eventually join in the first place.

Had NATO and Ukraine never been jerking each other off in an alleyway, and then suddenly there's unprovoked "Russian aggression" then the policy of "bad Russia, naughty Russia, we don't expand empires in the 21st century!" followed up with "helping Ukrainians defend themselves" and sanctions, would make coherent sense. NATO had been hands off Ukraine, and such respect for Russia was met with an illegal invasion. Since US and NATO policy is to not provoke Russia in Ukraine as it's totally unrealistic US and/or NATO would ever put actual skin in the game in a Russia-Ukraine conflict, then, ok, the policy line of just supplying arms and giving Ukrainians the "means to defend themselves" could make some sense.

And, that's become more-or-less the discourse now, rebranding NATO expansion Eastward as "just defensive" and "nothing to do with US imperialism", and the NATO-Ukrainian collaboration was not a provocation as everyone "knows it's not realistic for NATO to ever actually care about Ukrainians", and so on.

But it is simply in contradiction to the facts, and requires memory holing things that happened literally months ago, such as "Ukraine's right to join NATO" and "Ukraine's sovereignty over it's territory, even over regions that objectively do indeed want to separate" and "Ukraine's right to self-determination" (just not it's individual components) was the "big" meme going around justifying dumping arms in Ukraine, and justifying Ukraine rejecting all proposals by Russia, such as recognition of Crimea, Dombas independence, neutrality (NO! Right to join NATO!!!).

Of course, the "right to join NATO" without it being realistic to ever be able to join NATO (but by golly come on in Sweden and Finland, we have a door open policy!), is fucking dumb and tens of thousands of lives later, and no feasible way for Ukraine to take back all it's territory by force, much less Crimea, and the diplomatic resolutions available at the start of the war seem pretty attractive and the "right to join NATO" ... but only for Finland and Sweden seems very much cynical hypocrisy using Ukrainians as pawns, so, memory whole.

But those things happened. Those things actually happened.

Surprise, ? Must the thread really be reset ever so often (⇒ repetition)? Sorry, not going to keep restarting/resetting (even though we're coming up on 300 pages).
Indeed, trends, moves and shakes, ongoing developments, extending what's happened already, directions, give an impression, forms an overview, from Putin bullshitting the gullible to the Ukrainian "nobody" on the street shrugging and babbling (actually present on the ground).
Wait, yes, let me just repeat...

This stuff isn't floating in a vacuum.

Come to think on it, I'd have liked further comments on...

Anyone who didn't think from the get-go that this was always about China in the long run has not been paying attention. — Streetlight

Unfortunately, Streetlight is out, and it's a while back. :meh:

Must the thread really be reset ever so often (⇒ repetition)? — jorndoe

Well I thought probably not, but here you are popping up at random to remind people what we knew by page 10. That Russia are invading Ukraine, that the Russian line is this is a special operation with specific, justified strategic goals, and that Ukraine and it's Western backers think it's a land grab.

What exactly do you think your latest round of propaganda brings that's new?

A Proposed Peace Plan to End the Russo-Ukrainian War (Jun 18, 2022)

Realistic?

<sup>1. full Ukraine sovereignty and neutrality
2. Ukraine to give up Crimea
3. Russia to withdraw except for Donbas, where new (temporary) borders will be drawn
4. Donbas to vote on independence, equal rights to all, no discrimination
5. Russia to OK Ukraine joining the EU as the case may be
6. no NATO/Ukraine relations
7. small Ukraine military only
8. small Ukraine weaponry only
9. everyone caught up in the war to be returned home (Geneva Convention)
10. no reparations demands, no international war crimes tribunals
11. US and EU to help rebuild Ukraine
12. diplomatic relations among Russia, Ukraine, NATO members to be in place
13. sanctions against Russia to end
14. no more NATO members along Russia's borders
15. reduce military presence and nuclear weaponry altogether
(I'll assume that some sort of Black Sea agreement + passage + cleanup would be part of it)</sup>

Either way, why not take it to the negotiation table?

Leonid Volkov (Alexei Navalny chief of staff) opines (Jul 17, 2022):

Ignoring the usual political slant, I see a couple of worthwhile points. By the way, the reduction-to-chess-game misses the killings and bombing.

This proposal is not balanced, it is way too favorable for Russia, who in any case does not seek peace. I see zero chance for it.

Excellent piece.

why not take it to the negotiation table? — jorndoe

You mean take 15 points of concession to the table?

As opposed to only 3 of those points which were requested by the Russians back in December as a solution to the Ukraine crisis which would avoid war? Refused by the US.

As opposed to only five of those concessions requested by The Russians just three weeks into the war? Refused by the US.

As opposed to the now 15 point plan proposed way back in March to which the US response was to talk about war crimes and chemical weapons, the French response was to claim Russia were lying...

---

The points you're now pretending to be surprised about have been live issues since 2014. It is resoundingly the US and NATO who have refused to negotiate on any of them. Hence the war. The war that's making one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the US extremely rich. The war that's positioning the US to better fend off the threat from China...but I'm sure that's just coincidence. Maybe Russia didn't speak loudly enough earlier, I'm sure that's it. Maybe the US were distracted by a noise outside, or perhaps they had their headphones in... all much more sensible explanations than that the world's most powerful nation, known for manipulating events in its favour, is manipulating events in its favour.

jerking — boethius

You got that word right.

Leonid Volkov (Alexei Navalny chief of staff) opines (Jul 17, 2022):


Ignoring the usual political slant, I see a couple of worthwhile points. By the way, the reduction-to-chess-game misses the killings and bombing. — jorndoe

Did you post a link to an article after the first line? I can't find any.

https://twitter.com/leonidvolkov/status/1548697349676998656

Thanks!

I found it here too: https://unrollthread.com/t/1548697349676998656/ (more practical if one wants to save it)

Not sure Putin is interested in peace
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/20/russia-ukraine-war-odesa-black-sea/

The bitter truth may simple be that Russia can't lose. But it must not win either.

, yeah, that proposal is unlikely to be accepted. But getting the parties to talk would be great. At least the Black Sea shipment thing seems to have gone through. External shipping lines are going to require guarantees/safety though, not an overnight thing.

, ignoring the usual unpleasantries and guesswork as to my mental state, the proposal items largely aren't new, and the article is from last month (Jun). Some of the items probably can't be taken off. Negotiations take (willingness) to compromise, at least to talk about it. Putin wants as much of Ukraine as he can get away with, Zelenskyy wants the Russian forces to leave, then whatever details.

, yeah, there are trends and reasons that Putin + team aren't looking for peace. Heck, the invasion was kicked off with an attack on the capital (among other moves).

No end in sight, and as long as Putin + team aren't interested, the hostilities will keep on going.

Putin sends in the cannon fodder. If they're shot at, then bombs away. Repeat. Don't forget a few extra bombs for good measure. — paraphrasing Volkov

Airstrikes kill more Ukrainians despite grain export deal (AP News; Jul 22, 2022)

Missile strikes hit key Ukrainian port day after grain deal (Euronews; Jul 23, 2022)

EDIT: added Euronews article

Putin wants as much of Ukraine as he can get away with — jorndoe

And you know this how?

Because he once made a speech in which he talked about them being 'one people'. So did Nelson Mandela.

there are trends and reasons that Putin + team aren't looking for peace. — jorndoe

Which are? Compared to which actions of the US or Ukraine thst indicate they're looking for peace?

Give us a quick rundown of the moves so that we can all see what you see.

, already mentioned I'm not going to keep repeating; now at page 297.
Replace "know" with: as consistent with evidence as those other hypotheses.
Actions over time, reports, statements (keeping bullshitting in mind), ..., a multipronged attempt to gain an overview, that includes NATO, Nazis, whatever, but lots more than just that, ...

trends, moves and shakes, ongoing developments, extending what's happened already, directions, [...], from Putin bullshitting the gullible to the Ukrainian "nobody" on the street shrugging and babbling (actually present on the ground)

(OK, I did a repeat/copy/paste :smile:)