The actual problem being faced is the outdated idea of putin trying to rebuild some sort of empire (which is doomed to fail) … also the Chinese guy doing the same.

I don’t see how the age of empire building could exist in the nuclear age. China and Russia need to let go of this ideals and embrace globalisation.

The above is my reason against nuclear strikes but I balance it out with the necessity to do so in extreme circumstances…America as a new nation has not expanded territorially ever. These other old nations Russia China are clearly stuck in the past.

You might say it’s fine if China takes Taiwan or Russia Ukraine … it is not and never will be the sovereignaity of any nation state threatened by wanna be napoleons is an enterprise doomed to fail.

My requirement is minimal: for me pro-West simply means to be in favor of being part of the Western sphere of influence like by joining NATO and EU. — neomac

Well then I don't see much evidence that your (4) follows. Countries with a long history of democracy and free press tend to have better internal human rights. It's not a magic pill. You don't just get human rights with membership.

No you are talking about the situation in Donbas. I'm talking about Ukraine as opposed to Russia. — neomac

Why? There's no question of ceding the whole of Ukraine to Russia so what possible relevance would that have to this discussion?

it's like saying Ukraine chose Western values over submission to a dictatorship. The Russians have yet to do this. — Olivier5

Ah well, in that case, Russia are pretty forward thinking in terms of sovereignty and human rights. They're part of the UN and the UN are petty hot on that stuff.

Or, we could grow up and stop pretending that arbitrary lines around bits of the world have any meaning whatsoever about the unity of the people in them. It's your kind of nationalist bullshit that causes these problems.

Even your quotes testify that Russia's occupation is detrimental to human rights ... — Olivier5

So?

citing AI's Ukraine report here makes a comparison with their Russia-report pertinent — jorndoe

No it doesn't. No one is contesting the claim that Russia have a terrible human rights record, so confirming it seems entirely superfluous.

I’m surprised by how often this is getting equated with Russian apologetics. I haven’t heard one person cheering Putin on. — Xtrix

Yes. It's something I find chillingly fascinating. It ought to be fairly straightforward to discuss the best course of action our governments could take to bring about our humanitarian objectives. I'm baffled as to why that's so hard, why it has to be replaced instead by a fawning acceptance of whatever they say is right.

We used to be able to proudly hold our governments to account. Now were treated with suspicion if we even question them.

Man, I know we all have busy days and different interests and all that, but you should definitely post like, once a week or so, takes like yours and @Isaac's are the most rational ones to my mind. Some others too, to be fair, but am forgetting specific names.

Others raise fair points and some have legitimate concerns, but the way in which this war has turned many into a Putin is Evil and that's all that matters, is concerning.

Not least because it was not too long ago, for most of us, to remember that if you substitute "Kremlin stooge" for "Anti American" and change "Ukraine" to "Iraq", one can only be shocked at how little progress we've made in seeing through much corporate/militaristic media BS. Not that state run media is better.

Those who want the war to de-escalate are called propagandists for Russia. Unreal.

History repeating, but much worse, because of what could happen.

In any case, what is needed is a negotiation, not an escalation.

In any case, what is needed is a negotiation, not an escalation. — Manuel

That would require Putin's buy-in. No sign of that.

The sound of one hand clapping empties the air.

Or, we could grow up and stop pretending that arbitrary lines around bits of the world have any meaning whatsoever about the unity of the people in them. It's your kind of nationalist bullshit that causes these problems — Isaac

It's certainly not MY kind of BS. It's what exists. It's the reality we have to deal with. As much as I love John Lennon's imagination, nations are not going to disappear tomorrow.

Even your quotes testify that Russia's occupation is detrimental to human rights ...
— Olivier5

So? — Isaac

So to repel the Russian occupation is likely conducive to improved human rights in Ukraine...

That would require a mutual stop of military actions on both sides, regardless of the status they have as victims and aggressors. Why? If we don't have a stop, we will have escalation, as is happening right now. Then more people die, more land could be stolen, etc. It's not good for it to continue.

But some iota of goodwill is needed too. Russia shouldn't say, bomb civilian centers in Kiev, but Ukraine shouldn't be allowing other countries to blow up the pipeline. These options are "weak" militarily, but a gesture goes a long way.

At this moment, it's very hard to see such things happening. But they should continue through back channels or something. I think only Macron, out of the Western leaders still wants to talk. Not to mention 3/4's of the German population would prefer negotiation to escalations.

Right this moment, it's very hard. But further escalation is more fuel for the fire. But, alas, it will continue until the US and Russia decide to talk, absent intervention from another third party. It's not Putin alone. Europe too, especially the leaders of the western countries should be less bellicose. Germany in general had a sane attitude till very recent.

Russia's Ukraine Offensive 'Absolutely Senseless': Ex-Military Leader (Newsweek; Oct 9, 2022)

I notice the implicit admission of Russian insurgency, an organized, controlled staging area, in Donbas. I guess it's no secret. Does undermine some Kremlin statements, though; the pretense that it's all uninfluenced natives by themselves wanting to look to Russia. I guess that's not new, either. Sorry if I repeated.

, well, now you have the two statements side by side, with the party that wants to take over being the worse of the two (which matters). Perhaps more importantly is the trajectory, the moves, the apparent intents, willing commitments, that stuff. Informative indicators.

It's not Putin alone. — Manuel

Putin is the invader. The Ukrainians are fighting for their home. There are two options: Putin signals that he wants to cease invading, or the Ukrainians surrender.

This is just how it works. It would work this way whether the US and NATO were involved or not.

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero.

Nada.

but Ukraine shouldn't be allowing other countries to blow up the pipeline. — Manuel

In what sense has this happened?

But, alas, it will continue until the US and Russia decide to talk, absent intervention from another third party. It's not Putin alone. Europe too, especially the leaders of the western countries should be less bellicose. — Manuel

No Ukrainians were mentioned in this proposal. So the negotiations you promote means cutting off their efforts. You are in the Isaac camp who says the quicker the Ukrainians lose, the better off they will be.

In what sense has this happened? — Paine

In the sense that they allowed the US to blow up the Nordstream pipeline. I don't know if Germany was aware of this, but, I think that's counterproductive. Are they confident all Europeans won't mind potentially freezing to death? It's easy to speak of solidarity when one's life is not on the line.

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero. — frank

A compromise between say, taking a massive chunk of land or total humiliation could be possible. Clearly Russia is not going to get as much as they wanted. Nor do I think it's realistic to think for Ukraine to believe they will keep all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

This is independent of right and wrong for me, its realpolitik. If morals actually entered in wars, which rarely do, then the picture would be different. Sadly, that's not out world.

No Ukrainians were mentioned in this proposal. So the negotiations you promote means cutting off their efforts. You are in the Isaac camp who says the quicker the Ukrainians lose, the better off they will be. — Paine

Who is arming Ukraine? Do you seriously think that Ukraine would have been able to kick Russia back absent US help? They are at the mercy of NATO, which, thankfully, have provided them with the capacity for defense, which I think makes sense.

The sooner the war is over, the better they will be. Them and everybody else.

But worry not, my wishes of a quick end to this has vanished.

It's what exists. — Olivier5

So? Try to stop just saying random stuff and follow an argument.

We're currently talking about the moral rights and wrongs of including Ukrainian sovereignty in Donbas as a goal of foreign military aid.

We're not discussing whether Russia are bad for invading.

We're not discussing whether nations exist.

We're not discussing whether Ukraine as a whole might join the EU.

We're discussing whether Ukrainian sovereignty over Donbas is a legitimate humanitarian goal.

If you want to discuss something else then stop replying to comments not on that topic.

So to repel the Russian occupation is likely conducive to improved human rights in Ukraine... — Olivier5

Likely?

Firstly, no. Showing that Russia is also bad doesn't prove that everything not-Russia must be good, does it?

Secondly, you have to show that Russian control over Donbas will be worse than Ukrainian control. I'll try underlining too, I know you guys have trouble reading emphasis. Worse than. It's not sufficient to simply show that Russia are also bad because 'also' is not 'worse'.

the party that wants to take over being the worse of the two — jorndoe

You get that from a summary?

You, @neomac and @Olivier5 alike are all seeing this like we're choosing wallpaper. If you're choosing between A and B but to get B requires years of brutally destructive land war, then B had better be bloody fantastic. It had better have every citizen decked out with their own fucking floating island in the Mediterranean. A slightly better human rights report (but still bad) is not worth the death of thousands of innocent people. I can't believe I've just had to write that.

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero.
— frank

A compromise between say, taking a massive chunk of land or total humiliation could be possible. Clearly Russia is not going to get as much as they wanted. Nor do I think it's realistic to think for Ukraine to believe they will keep all of Ukraine, including Crimea. — Manuel

Regardless of how they divide up Ukraine after the war, ending the war requires one of two things:

1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.

2. Ukraine surrenders

Those are the options, Manuel. That's it. There are no other options. None.

None.

In the sense that they allowed the US to blow up the Nordstream pipeline — Manuel

I was not aware that had been established as a fact.

That would require Putin's buy-in. No sign of that. — frank

According to whom?

You got news the rest of the planet doesn't know about?

You got news the rest of the planet doesn't know about? — frank

https://mate.substack.com/p/russia-says-us-wrecked-ukraine-talks


The point is that there's been no such request. Putin's not going to just offer is he? The guy's a fucking psychopath why would he just up and offer a peace deal? That's seriously unlikely to happen. He's going to have to be pressured into one.

For the war to end, one of two things has to happen.

1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.

2. Ukraine surrenders.

If you want the war to end, that means you want one of the above.

Period. End of Story.

Yep. We're talking about how to get (1) to happen. Your idea is we just wait? Shall we cross our fingers too? Meanwhile a few more hundred Ukrainians die.

Yep. We're talking about how to get (1) to happen. Your idea is we just wait? Shall we cross our fingers too? Meanwhile a few more hundred Ukrainians die. — Isaac

What's your suggestion?

Well then I don't see much evidence that your (4) follows. Countries with a long history of democracy and free press tend to have better internal human rights. It's not a magic pill. You don't just get human rights with membership. — Isaac

Nowhere I said that support for human rights comes with membership as a magic pill .
If our decisions require pragmatism under uncertainty, we are interested in relative likelihood and evidences to assess it. So I was talking in terms of relative likelihood. And I claim that it’s more likely that a pro-West country can implement human rights by being within the Western sphere of influence (so within NATO and EU), than by being within the Russian sphere of influence. What evidences do I have for this? Historical evidences (see Germany, Italy and Spain after WWII) and ex-Soviet Union countries that joined EU and NATO after the Soviet Union collapse. Also the democracy index is telling (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/democracy-index-2022-europe.jpg, https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking): Russian democracy index is lower than any country in the EU and Belarus which is under the sphere of influence of Russia is even lower than Russia, Kazakhstan better of Russia for few points. Additionally, as already pointed out, candidature to NATO/EU membership doesn't come without scrutiny and places some burden on the candidate to prove also their commitment to EU/NATO charter which include democracy, individual freedoms and human rights (nothing alike can be found on the Russian side).
So I would consider such evidence strong enough as long as you do not have at least equally strong evidence to the contrary, namely that within Russian sphere of influence countries have a greater chance to see human rights implemented equally or even better than in Western countries.

There's no question of ceding the whole of Ukraine to Russia so what possible relevance would that have to this discussion? — Isaac

Because Russia is at war with Ukraine and annexed part of Ukrainian territory, against its will. But even if you want to exclude Crimea and Donbass from this discussion, the problem is still there: did you forget the story of Ukrainian neutrality?
BTW since you are so passionate about human rights, how does having Crimea and Donbass annexed to Russia get those regions likely closer to having a more Western-like implementation of human rights institutions?

As long as you keep evading my counter-arguments, ditching my questions and shifting focus, you are no longer compelling. Try playing the devil's advocate some times instead of always playing dumb.

The only problem with Russia is the nukes but should we really worry about that when it's time to kick ass? :fire: — Baden

Sure hope it won't come to that. Kelsey Piper is pessimistic, in the long term anyway:

How to stop rolling the dice on the destruction of human civilization (Sep 22, 2022)

Meanwhile in Moscow ...

(crazies are everywhere)

You, neomac and @Olivier5 alike are all seeing this like we're choosing wallpaper. If you're choosing between A and B but to get B requires years of brutally destructive land war, then B had better be bloody fantastic. It had better have every citizen decked out with their own fucking floating island in the Mediterranean. A slightly better human rights report (but still bad) is not worth the death of thousands of innocent people. I can't believe I've just had to write that. — Isaac

I can't believe I had to read it once again. Such a claim "A slightly better human rights report (but still bad)" is highly misleading. My political support to Ukraine is for granting their chance to grow in prosperity and political freedoms within the Western sphere of influence in the next decades. The importance of granting them this chance goes however beyond the Ukrainian people themselves and their struggle against centuries of Russian oppression , it concerns also the World Oder as we know it and the power conflict between Western World and the emerging authoritarian regimes. Now since human rights and democracy are best implemented in the West than in the emerging authoritarian regimes, I choose to side with the West. And I also think this conclusion is backed by pragmatic considerations under uncertainty, factoring in realistic expectations about individual, collective and State dynamics. At least until someone proves me wrong, of course. So try harder.

You would be glad to learn that its present contribution to the defense of Ukraine is quite significant and effective. — Olivier5

It does appear so. I don’t see how Ukraine could have come this far without US backing.

The US motivations are questionable. It’s certainly not for love of democracy or freedom — let’s face it. It’s an opportunity to strengthen and expand their influence. Otherwise they wouldn’t be involved to this degree. And of course because the government is owned and run by corporate America, and the defense contractors love war, it’s not being opposed by either political party.

So I’m not happy about it. I’m not happy about pushing for continued war without equally pushing for peace negotiations.

For the war to end, one of two things has to happen.

1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.

2. Ukraine surrenders. — frank

Those aren’t the only options. The war could end with nuclear weapons, which we’re getting closer and closer to — and so threatens the survival of life on earth. It does well not to overlook this.

What's your suggestion? — frank

The US (or someone of similar standing) offer to broker peace talks. No more weapons drip-fed to Ukraine. Either UN/NATO on the ground or we don't take part at all. Solutions on the table should be a non-NATO Ukraine, independent Donbas, Russian Crimea as these barely change the current status quo bug might be enough to end the war.

If America pulled the plug on the ammo supply Ukraine would surrender tomorrow. So to suggest they don't have any power is this is obviously bollocks.

At least until someone proves me wrong, of course. So try harder. — neomac

There's no 'proving' you wrong. You think the "chance" of Ukraine improving its human rights record is worth thousands of deaths and can't be achieved any other way. I can't argue against a callous disregard for human life nor a dysfunctional imagination.

The US (or someone of similar standing) offer to broker peace talks. No more weapons drip-fed to Ukraine. Either UN/NATO on the ground or we don't take part at all. Solutions on the table should be a non-NATO Ukraine, independent Donbas, Russian Crimea as these barely change the current status quo bug might be enough to end the war. — Isaac

As I explained to Manuel, negotiations require a cease fire. Putin will have to ask for one. That's just how it works.

The US is not the appropriate broker because they have an interest in the conflict. When Putin signals that he wants to talk, a broker will emerge.

If America pulled the plug on the ammo supply Ukraine would surrender tomorrow. So to suggest they don't have any power is this is obviously bollocks. — Isaac

I don't think so. They're getting supplies from other countries, and Russia is presently losing on the battlefield.

To put it simply, the U.S. position that the war must continue to severely weaken Russia, blocking negotiations, is based on a quite remarkable assumption: that facing defeat, Putin will pack his bags and slink away to a bitter fate. He will not do what he easily can: strike across Ukraine with impunity using Russia’s conventional weapons, destroying critical infrastructure and Ukrainian government buildings, attacking the supply hubs outside Ukraine, moving on to sophisticated cyberattacks against Ukrainian targets. All of this is easily within Russia’s conventional capacity, as U.S. government and the Ukrainian military command acknowledge — with the possibility of escalation to nuclear war in the not remote background.

The assumption is worth contemplating. It is too quickly evaded.

Indeed.

The US (or someone of similar standing) offer to broker peace talks. — Isaac

Or even get out of the way of negotiations.

As I’m sure has been cited, back in April there were negotiations between Kiev and Moscow. Both the UK and the US (Austin outright saying the goal is to “weaken Russia”) pressured against these talks.

The terms of that settlement would have been for Russia to withdraw to the positions it held before launching the invasion on February 24. In exchange, Ukraine would “promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The tentative deal was the result of in-person peace talks Russian and Ukrainian officials held in Istanbul at the end of March. Virtual talks resumed after the meeting in Istanbul, but the two sides ultimately failed to reach a deal.

A major factor in the failed negotiated settlement was pressure from the West.

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/08/31/report-russia-ukraine-tentatively-agreed-on-peace-deal-in-april/

The idea that the US involvement is principled or benevolent is pretty absurd.