As said many times, I believe Putin is wholly and solely responsible for the criminal invasion of Ukraine, the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Wholly and solely. — Wayfarer

Then I suggest you start reading from page 1 and report back to me once you've caught up.

What say you?

European nations denounce Russian hybrid attacks, cable cut probes launched
^{— Andrius Sytas, Barbara Erling, Johan Ahlander, et al · Reuters · Nov 19, 2024}

Russian attacks on undersea cables 'most serious threat' to our infrastructure' - NATO
^{— Shona Murray · euronews · Nov 28, 2024 · 12m}

Lies, fear- and war-mongering? Either way, there are prior examples, not unheard of.

Well, what did you expect?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but NATO has been involved in a proxy war against Russia for about three years now. We're launching missiles into Russia. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was Russia firing missiles into Europe.

You're looking at the world through star-spangled glasses, that's why 579 pages in you still haven't gotten beyond the surface-level propaganda.

:100: :up: That's the truth, yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread who promote "realpolitik" and the anti-American narrative and tow the Kremlin-line. The real problem is that there's going to be these people in the Trump administration.

And Trump's stance is basically what you said. Hence Putin can be confident and is confident that Trump will give him a similar lucrative peace deal just as Trump gave to the Taleban. There simply is no way in hell that Trump would put pressure on Putin here. Would he, after all what he has said, then truly ramp up the support of Ukraine to pressure Putin? Would he give US cruise missiles (with conventional warheads) to Ukraine to put more pressure on Putin? Does he really think that selling US oil and gas will put pressure on Putin?

Nope. Americans don't care so much for Ukraine and they'll believe the "forever war that only supports the military industrial comples" argument. The cop out will be marketed as a brilliant achievement and any critique of it will be labelled as outbursts of "Trump Derangement Syndrom". Just look at how little the surrender deal to the Taleban sparked outcry.

[...] yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread who promote "realpolitik" and the anti-American narrative and tow the Kremlin-line. — ssu

What's your deal with getting so personal?

But that enlargement to Ukraine they had already stopped before February 2022. — ssu

What are you referring to here? The Brussel summit of 2021 reiterated, for the first time in 13 years, that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. It looks like the opposite...

What are you referring to here? The Brussel summit of 2021 reiterated, for the first time in 13 years, that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. It looks like the opposite... — Benkei

The guarantees that Germany made that Ukraine wouldn't become a member after the military buildup that was "military exercizes". Or just read Angela Merkels memoirs. Or look at the position of Hungary on Ukrainian NATO membership. Ukraine has gotten only this "member in the future" without actual timetable. Just look at the comparison to the two newest NATO members: Before actual membership application Turkey didn't see any problem in Finland joining NATO (Finland asked it before the application), but once the actual application was in, then the bazaar haggling by Erdogan started just as with Sweden. Yet now Hungary is directly opposed to Ukrainian membership even before there is no application process ongoing with Ukraine. That's a huge difference.

And moreover, what about the Brussel summit of 2021? Did it really iterate that? NO! There is NO talk of when Ukraine would join NATO. Here's what the actual communique said about Ukraine:

First of the situation that Ukraine and Georgia and Moldavia are in:

We reiterate our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova within their internationally recognised borders. In accordance with its international commitments, we call on Russia to withdraw the forces it has stationed in all three countries without their consent. We strongly condemn and will not recognise Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and denounce its temporary occupation. The human rights abuses and violations against the Crimean Tatars and members of other local communities must end. Russia’s recent massive military build-up and destabilising activities in and around Ukraine have further escalated tensions and undermined security. We call on Russia to reverse its military build-up and stop restricting navigation in parts of the Black Sea. We also call on Russia to stop impeding access to the Sea of Azov and Ukrainian ports. We commend Ukraine’s posture of restraint and diplomatic approach in this context. We seek to contribute to de-escalation. We are also stepping up our support to Ukraine. We call for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements by all sides, and support the efforts of the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group. Russia, as a signatory of the Minsk Agreements, bears significant responsibility in this regard. We call on Russia to stop fuelling the conflict by providing financial and military support to the armed formations it backs in eastern Ukraine. We reiterate our full support to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

And here, about the relationship between Ukraine and NATO:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. The Annual National Programmes under the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) remain the mechanism by which Ukraine takes forward the reforms pertaining to its aspiration for NATO membership. Ukraine should make full use of all instruments available under the NUC to reach its objective of implementing NATO principles and standards. The success of wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law, will be crucial in laying the groundwork for a prosperous and peaceful Ukraine. Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine, are particularly important. We welcome significant reforms already made by Ukraine and strongly encourage further progress in line with Ukraine’s international obligations and commitments. We will continue to provide practical support to reform in the security and defence sector, including through the Comprehensive Assistance Package. We will also continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its resilience against hybrid threats, including through intensifying activities under the NATO-Ukraine Platform on Countering Hybrid Warfare. We welcome the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine with regard to security in the Black Sea region. The Enhanced Opportunities Partner status granted last year provides further impetus to our already ambitious cooperation and will promote greater interoperability, with the option of more joint exercises, training, and enhanced situational awareness. Military cooperation and capacity building initiatives between Allies and Ukraine, including the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade, further reinforce this effort. We highly value Ukraine’s significant contributions to Allied operations, the NATO Response Force, and NATO exercises.

This simply is the "Ukraine can be a member in the future" -rhetoric given already ages ago WITH NO TIMETABLE. Just commentary that Ukraine has done good, but has still to do work in "wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law" and also "Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine". And this will be supported. The limbo that Ukraine was continuing in 2021. And seems to continue today.

The fact is that Russia demanded a veto say on any new members to NATO. That goes against the founding charter of NATO. Or should NATO add an article to it's charter "new members have to be accepted by Russia in order to join the organization"? The alarm bells for Finnish leadership went off already back then, because Russia was demanding this. Even in the above communique, NATO states that " We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference." NATO would go against it charter if it would have accepted Russia's demands.

It's like Turkey's bid for EU membership: it's not going to get into the EU (if it still wanted), yet the EU won't admit publicly that Turkey does have no possibility of joining.

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance [...]

, that's not very ambiguous, is it?

You really think a commitment to the very the thing that sparked this whole catastrophe was going to set the Russians at ease in 2021?

How harmless do you believe the Russians viewed this as, considering 'ambiguous' commitments in 2008 led to over a decade of Western involvement in Ukraine, complete with coup d'etat and military training and armament - all of which clearly intended to make Ukraine jump the gun on a Russian intervention and create a fait accompli?

Repeating the delusional Kremlin lies isn't going to go anywhere. You can defend the rapist and accuse the rape victim as long as you want and try to win people over to your anti-Americanism. Luckily you are quite alone with that.

What? :brow:

These aren't 'Kremlin lies' - these are common views held among many Western scholars. If you don't want to debate, don't debate, but don't throw this weak nonsense at me.

These aren't 'Kremlin lies' - these are common views held among many Western scholars — Tzeentch

:rofl:

Yes, you've gone over the few many times over and over again. Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer, the tiny lot.

If you don't want to debate, don't debate, but don't throw this weak nonsense at me. — Tzeentch

Good debate is to produce a counterargument based on some evidence, a clear way to say just what is wrong or something like that. Which I try to do, but going over and over again things like the Ukrainian revolution isn't worth wile with you as you stick to the obvious anti-American narrative where everything has happened because of the US and Putin simply has responded to such "outright hostility". But seems for you "debate" is like:

"Fresh evidence" - Yea, typical nonsense when unfortunate facts need to be white-washed — Tzeentch

Do we hear from you what was wrong there? Of course not.

Do we hear from you what was wrong there? — ssu

The title alone makes me not take it seriously - trying to claim authority by presenting 'fresh evidence', as though anything is going to top the three corresponding Ukrainian accounts that have been out there for years, and the Western press has done everything in its power to ignore.

Then they mention some details and pretend 'this makes everything different' - how convenient. Plausible deniability achieved, etc., people who have been searching for any excuse to dismiss the clear picture we already had now have a little yarn to spin.

I don't waste my time on such 'journalism'. That's why I dismissed it.

With Russia short on men and material and Hezbollah reeling from having its entire leadership killed, taking heavy losses from air strikes, and seemingly losing a sizeable proportion of its rocket deterrent on the ground, it seems that Syrian rebels (primarily HTS) have taken the opportunity to sever the SAA's lines of communications to Damascus and have now entered Aleppo, Syria's second largest city. The area Assad's forces fought for over five years, with major Iranian, Hezbollah, and Russian support, is being lost in a matter of days.

This is the unfortunate follow on of Russia and Iran's other defeats. The relatively stable stalemate in Syria is likely to keep sliding out of control since Assad has long been highly reliant on foreign support and most of the opposition that is left come in the appealing flavors of "out and out radical jihadis" and "Turkish-supported out and out radical jihadis willing to start fights over Kurdish areas most Arab factions have given up on."

Just look at how little the surrender deal to the Taleban sparked outcry. — ssu

Thanks SSU your perspective on geopolitics always seems very sound and well informed to me.

Let’s not forget, however, that while Trump inked the deal with the Taliban that lead to the US withdrawal, it was Biden who had to execute it, which lead to those disastrous scenes and deaths at Kabul Airport and the debacle of the collapse of the Afghan military. This was then used against Biden for the remainder of this term, regardless of the fact that Trump had set the wheels in motion. Which would only be typical of MAGA politics. But that’s the other thread.

I generally refrain from commenting on the Ukraine disaster, but I have an ominous feeling about it. I think it’s too optimistic to hope for Ukraine to turn the tide of war, but it’s desperately important to avoid and outcome that Putin can claim as a victory.

Let’s not forget, however, that while Trump inked the deal with the Taliban that lead to the US withdrawal, it was Biden who had to execute it, which lead to those disastrous scenes and deaths at Kabul Airport and the debacle of the collapse of the Afghan military. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is so. The double whammy of two incompetent leaders is what created us scenes where desperate Afghans try to fly jet transports holding on to their landing gear... not understanding that they will die as the cruise speed of the aircraft is 520 mph and it flies at altitudes they won't have oxygen and aren't going to survive the cold either.

The unfortunate issue here is that because Presidents of both parties are culprits for this disaster, it isn't discussed at all. Because it's a bipartisan failure, in the highly partisan discourse it won't surface.

I think it’s too optimistic to hope for Ukraine to turn the tide of war, but it’s desperately important to avoid and outcome that Putin can claim as a victory. — Wayfarer

It's not so rosy either for Putin and Russia. He is burning through a lot of manpower and war material. It's not like all would be lost for Ukraine.

Why the situation is actually quite bad is very well put in the following video that also goes through what mistakes Trump made with the peace deal with the Taleban and what kind of peace plans there are now. Now we don't know what Trump will, do, yet a quick deal can have dramatic consequences. OF course, as the commentator say, this all is very speculative...



Going for an armstice and freezing the border where it is will be a victory for Putin. And then the conflict can continue as an on/off conflict it was 2014-2022. This will be simply damning and a way for Russia to really wore down Ukraine and NATO countries.

Now Trump has picked Keith Kellogg as the special envoy for Ukraine, who has been working at the America First Institute after retirement. At least this is a general, who isn't at all clueless, but has been a realist all along and just from looking at interviews he has given as a Fox commentator before the invasion and throughout the war. Kellog earlier urged the US to give more arms when Ukraine had the initiative and well predicted that the US isn't giving enough for Ukraine to win and that Russia will go on the defensive (which proved to be correct at that time).

On the America First Institute (think tank), Kellog himself gives a well thought paper on how he see the situation here: America First, Russia, & Ukraine

Some quotes from that paper that Kellog (and the think tank) state,

Ukraine’s potential admission to NATO was a sensitive issue for Vladimir Putin even before Joe Biden took the oath of office in January 2021. Although Putin was momentarily open to the idea in the early 2000s, he began to speak out against it after the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, which confirmed that NATO one day planned to admit Ukraine as a member.

Putin has long argued that Ukraine could never leave Russia’s sphere of influence by claiming Russians and Ukrainians are one people, denying that Ukrainians are a separate people, and opposing the idea of an independent Ukrainian state. During a one-on-one meeting with President George W. Bush in 2008, Putin said, “You have to understand, George. Ukraine is not even a country.” During a visit to Kyiv in 2013, Putin said, “God wanted the two countries to be together,” and their union was based upon “the authority of the Lord,” unalterable by any earthly force.[ii] Putin underscored and highlighted this idea in a July 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” in which he argued Ukraine could only be sovereign in partnership with Russia and asserted that present-day Ukraine occupies historically Russian lands.[iii]

During a February 2024 interview with Putin by journalist Tucker Carlson, Putin provided a long, nonsensical account of Russian and Ukrainian history in which he disputed Ukraine’s nationality and history and repeated his ridiculous claims that Russia invaded Ukraine in part to fight Nazism in the country.[iv]

Here you can see that Kellogg is fully aware of the reason why Putin attacked Ukraine and is fully aware (unlike the pro-Kremlin apologists. Mearsheimer, Sachs) of the reasons why this isn't only about NATO enlargement.

Then a bit of alternative history, "what if" things had been done differently:

An America First approach could have prevented the invasion.

First, it was in America’s best interests to maintain peace with Putin and not provoke and alienate him with aggressive globalist human rights and pro-democracy campaigns or an effort to promote Ukrainian membership in NATO. It made no sense even to allude to supporting eventual NATO membership for Ukraine, as this would require a unanimous vote of NATO members, which at the time was highly unlikely. Ukraine also needed to meet stiff membership requirements, including democratic and military reforms that included aligning the Ukrainian military with NATO equipment. (At the June 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, NATO members pledged to admit Ukraine once they agreed "conditions are met," and dropped the membership requirements. This was understood to mean NATO would consider admitting Ukraine after the war ends.)

Second, it was in America’s interest to make a deal with Putin on Ukraine joining NATO, especially by January 2022 when there were signs that a Russian invasion was imminent. This was the time when the Biden Administration should have dropped its obsession with publicly criticizing Putin and worked toward a compromise. A U.S. offer to delay Ukraine’s admission into NATO for a decade might have been enough to convince Putin to call off the invasion, but Biden Administration officials refused to make such an offer.

Third, the United States and its allies should have sent substantial lethal aid to Ukraine in the fall of 2021 to deter a Russian invasion. Instead, as an invasion appeared likely in December 2021, Biden ignored urgent appeals from Zelenskyy for military aid—especially anti-tank Javelins and anti-air Stingers—and warned Putin that the United States would send lethal aid to Ukraine if Russia invaded. Biden’s message conveyed U.S. weakness to Putin, implying he could use military intimidation to manipulate U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Some notable points. Kellogg understands that NATO membership wasn't happening, and lethal military aid should have been jumped up before the invasion. Only that is deterrence. Yet this is only a hypothetical scenario and if Putin would have been stopped from invading Ukraine is uncertain as his actions fully show that this isn't just about NATO or what the US does, but Ukraine itself.

As this is very long, here's Kellogg's actual peace plan, or what the objective of it should be:

This should start with a formal U.S. policy to bring the war to a conclusion.

Specifically, it would mean a formal U.S. policy to seek a cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement. Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia.

To convince Putin to join peace talks, President Biden and other NATO leaders should offer to put off NATO membership for Ukraine for an extended period in exchange for a comprehensive and verifiable peace deal with security guarantees.

In their April 2023 Foreign Affairs article, Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan proposed that in exchange for abiding by a cease-fire, a demilitarized zone, and participating in peace talks, Russia could be offered some limited sanctions relief. Ukraine would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory, but it would agree to use diplomacy, not force, with the understanding that this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office. Until that happens, the United States and its allies would pledge to only fully lift sanctions against Russia and normalize relations after it signs a peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine. We also call for placing levies on Russian energy sales to pay for Ukrainian reconstruction.

By enabling Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength while also communicating to Russia the consequences if it fails to abide by future peace talk conditions, the United States could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned with U.S. and Ukrainian interests. Part of this negotiated end-state should include provisions in which we establish a long-term security architecture for Ukraine’s defense that focuses on bilateral security defense. Including this in a Russia-Ukraine peace deal offers a path toward long-term peace in the region and a means of preventing future hostilities between the two nations.

That seems calming as at least this is realistic, but then again, Kellogg is just an envoy and can be replaced. The notable issue here is if Ukraine really would be negotiating from a position of strength. Would Trump be ready to make a bilateral defense agreement on Ukraine to deter Russia? That Russia wouldn't just lick it's wounds, produce more tanks and ammo, have some new generations hit conscription age and continue the fight afterwards? Or will the peace deal be a Dolchstoss for Ukraine that Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated for Trump in Doha 2020.

This is the real question here.

, well, whatever anyone might expect, some of what happened (or is happening) in the name of peace and a neutral Ukraine:

▸ Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-2022-)
▸ "On conducting a special military operation" (2022)
▸ Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
▸ Atrocity crimes during the Russo-Ukrainian War
▸ Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014) (Kharkiv Pact ditched)
▸ Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts (2022)
▸ Russification of Ukraine » Modern-day Ukraine
▸ Larger Wheat Harvest in Ukraine Than Expected (— NASA · Dec 4, 2022) → Exclusive: Crimea showers Syria with wheat, Ukraine cries foul (— Reuters · Dec 19, 2022)

• What the Ukrainians wanted (or want): 2013-4, 2014, 2014-
• What has come out of the UN: 68/262, 2623, 11th session, ES-11/1, ES-11/2, ES-11/3, ES-11/4, ES-11/5, 77/229, ES-11/6

Elsewhere:

▸ Kabelmysteriene (The cable mysteries) (— NRK · Jun 26, 2022)
▸ Hybrid CoE Paper 18: The Arctic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: The increased risk of conflict and hybrid threats (— Hybrid CoE · May 10, 2023)
▸ Unprecedented GPS jamming attack affects 1600 aircraft over Europe (— New Scientist · Mar 29, 2024)
▸ GPS jamming traced to Russia after flights over Europe suspended (— New Scientist · May 1, 2024)
▸ Innovation: Recent GPS jamming in regions of geopolitical conflict (— GPS World · May 24, 2024)
▸ Newest NATO Member Sweden Says Russia Disrupting Its Satellite Networks (— Bloomberg · Jun 20, 2024)
▸ Nordic satellites targeted by Russia after Sweden’s NATO accession (— Telecoms Tech News · Jun 21, 2024)
▸ European nations denounce Russian hybrid attacks, cable cut probes launched (— Reuters · Nov 19, 2024)
▸ Russian attacks on undersea cables 'most serious threat' to our infrastructure' - NATO (— euronews · Nov 28, 2024 · 12m)

Squaring it so narrowly is off.

Besides, you've been given sufficient evidence + arguments that repeating your lines as if you hadn't seems disingenuous.

Can you ever just make a concise point? All this waffling and linking articles is just vague and pointless. I'm not going to fish through dozens of articles and previous posts to figure out what your arguments are.

Also, just linking articles is not something that holds any value in today's information environment. The internet is flooded with propaganda and nonsense.

I could find hundreds of articles about why the earth is supposedly flat if I wanted to. You'll simply dismiss them, as will I with yours.

You replied to my post stating that NATO has been involved in a proxy war in Ukraine for three years.

Do you dispute this?

Would he, after all what he has said, then truly ramp up the support of Ukraine to pressure Putin?

Potentially, yes. Trump thinks about things very transactionally. He wants to "win" any deal.

But Putin is sort of stuck with maximalist aims, which is why Russians are forced to do things like carry out frontal assaults in civilian cars and golf cart style ATVs. What is Putin going to do, declare "victory" while leaving the "Nazi regime" in power in Kyiv with explicit US security guarantees that are for all intents and purposes going to have the same effect as being in NATO, while having triggered NATO expansion to the north and having his war result in 700,000+ killed or wounded and the destruction of most of Russia's military hardware and major economic issues, all to annex some areas in the Donbas (not even the whole Donbas), which Russia already defacto controlled in 2022, plus Mariupol and some sparsely populated areas in the south?

This was what was worth all the deaths, Europe abandoning Russian energy exports, spending through their reserves, and a coup that saw Putin fleeing the capital and warning the nation about civil war on TV? And this will happen in the context of Assad's forces routing in Syria and a protest movement that looks a lot like Euromaidan sweeping Georgia and all the post Soviet states seemingly abandoning Russia for the West or China.

I can certainly see Putin being forced to overreach and this triggering a stronger response.

Well, that's too bad , I guess you go by own firsthand accounts. :D If you don't (or can't) evaluate more to add more context, then that's too bad as well. (Or just the usual cop-out.) :shrug:
So, did you think that those ▸ items were to be expected? (By the way, has the Kremlin somehow managed to purge NATO from their vicinity? No? But they have accomplished something.)
As mentioned sometime, continuing to bring up "NATO is in a proxy war with Russia", is about as helpful/useful as saying "North Korea and Iran are in a proxy war with Ukraine", hence it's brought up out of bias, potentially questionable preconception, whatever, maybe an agenda.

Exclusive› Medvedev on NATO ‘direct war’ with Russia and escalation risks amid Ukraine conflict
^{— Dmitry Medvedev (interview) · AlArabiya News · Nov 27, 2024 · 20m:10s}

Notice the (silovik style) talking points, propaganda lines, incidentally having made their way to certain others (thoroughly).

I think we have to face up to the fact that the Russians think they're in a state of war with us. Donald Tusk has referred to it as a pre-war situation. I think he's wrong. I think it's an actual war. We've seen already quite clearly some very aggressive moves on the part of the Russians in various European countries. I think we're in a very difficult situation, and Russia is probably better to have some sort of dialogue with them, than no contact at all. So I don't rule that out. But I think at the moment, I'm not sure Russia is in a mood or a situation where it's going to be very easy to talk to Putin. — Richard Dearlove (interview) · Sky News · Nov 27, 2024 · 1m:4s

Either way, that sure is what the Kremlin circle wants others to hear (perhaps domestically in particular), something like "Russia is at war with NATO, the US, the West", which is just nonsense.

But I think it may also be Zelensky's attempt to, in effect, call the West’s bluff. Actually getting all Nato’s 32 members to agree to a quick membership would be very difficult, but in effect he is asking, ‘If not the Article 5 security guarantee, what else could be offered?’ — Mark Galeotti (via Andy Gregory) · The Independent · Dec 1, 2024

No particular prospect of Ukrainian NATO membership according to Galeotti. Others have come to similar conclusions.

Potentially, yes. Trump thinks about things very transactionally. He wants to "win" any deal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And all deals simply don't go through. "Winning" any deal might not be a win.

Why I think this is important is that usually all US Presidents attempt a domestic agenda, don't get much of it done and finally the only playing field for them is the Foreign policy arena.

What is Putin going to do, declare "victory" while leaving the "Nazi regime" in power in Kyiv with explicit US security guarantees that are for all intents and purposes going to have the same effect as being in NATO — Count Timothy von Icarus

Would in the end the US do this? That's the real question. I'm all for Trump if would seek a position of strength for Ukraine, but is it really this. Where US has really commitment is supporting Israel. That's where I see a real bipartisan commitment, which isn't fluttering in the Wind. Ukraine hasn't that. In 2016 Trump did give a damn on Ukraine. Anyway, I fear that in the US many politicians see Ukraine simply as a "problem". Like Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam etc. While Putin can indeed declare a victory. After all, according to him, Russia has fought NATO all along, hence Russia can say it has defeated the might of the West and prevailed.

This was what was worth all the deaths — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, the idea of Russia that has regained it's territory, Russia re-emerging from it's latest "Time of Troubles" is indeed worth that. It's irrelevant that Crimea and the Donbas are basically more of a dead weight and a burden than new resources that would or could vitalize the country. It's irrelevant that the important economic ties to Europe are cut. Putin doesn't care a shit about economics. He has re-iterated even today what a disaster the collapse of the Soviet Union was and this is his attempt to restore it. Politicians do start wars because of ideas.

I can certainly see Putin being forced to overreach and this triggering a stronger response. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Russia could lose as it did lose the Russo-Japanese War or the Soviet-Polish war. A war lost would likely change Russian politics and lead to internal reforms. Yet if the West repeats to itself again and again that "the Ukraine war is unwinnable", then Putin will win and Russia won't stop at Ukraine.

As mentioned sometime, continuing to bring up "NATO is in a proxy war with Russia", is about as helpful/useful as saying "North Korea and Iran are in a proxy war with Ukraine", — jorndoe

Except that in the case of North Korea it isn't in a proxy war. When you commit your own armed forces into a war, you are directly a combatant, whatever you say about denying the whole issue or declare them being "volunteers" etc.

* * *
What is happening in Georgia now will be telling. After several proxy conflicts, an open war and annexations, will Georgia bow down and accept it's place under Russia sphere of influence? Another example that this isn't just about Ukraine.

I conclude that you're unable to admit even something so basic as NATO and Russia being involved in a proxy war against each other. That's how flimsy your arguments are - you need to twist and turn around even the most obvious realities.

On the topic of first-hand accounts: I have shared them. You, presumably, haven't even bothered to look at them.

Potentially, yes. Trump thinks about things very transactionally. He wants to "win" any deal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd be pretty surprised if he supports Ukraine in any way. Why would he?

I'd be pretty surprised if he supports Ukraine in any way. Why would he? — frank

That's the worry. That he will do the same thing for Ukrainian that he did to the Republic of Afghanista, a surrender deal and hence assist the Russians as he did the Taleban.

People are worried about this, just like NATO's secretary general.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has told U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that Washington would face a "dire threat" from China, Iran, and North Korea if Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, the Financial Times reported on Dec. 2.

But why should Trump listen to people like Rutte, when he has his friend Putin. Who btw shows his prowess as an intel guy in how he talks to Trump:

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has told U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that Washington would face a "dire threat" from China, Iran, and North Korea if Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, the Financial Times reported on Dec. 2.

What does he mean by that? That Ukraine is the only thing stopping a giant BRIC takeover? That seems a little crazy.

Did you notice that when you bugged out from Afghanistan, the ally of yours collapsed immediately after you directly negotiated with your Islamist enemies without them?

This Trump-Biden cop out made Putin to think you wouldn't react much if he attempted a takeover Ukraine (as his intel painted a very rose picture of easy this would be). Hence if you push for a similar "peace" that is very unfavorable for Ukraine, just like you did with North Vietnam and the Taleban (without caring much about South Vietnam or Afghanistan), then you embolden Russia, China and North Korea.

Hope you understand the logic.

Did you notice that when you bugged out from Afghanistan, the ally of yours collapsed immediately after you directly negotiated with your Islamist enemies without them? — ssu

Yes, but I thought Afghanistan was invaded on a quest to find Osama Bin Ladin. In the meantime, Afghanistan became a massive heroin producer, with much of that ending up on the streets of small towns in the US. It's been truly devastating, which I see firsthand because I work in healthcare. It's hard for me to see how the US screwing around in Afghanistan is a good thing for anyone anywhere.

This Trump-Biden cop out made Putin to think you wouldn't react much if he attempted a takeover Ukraine — ssu

Obama didn't react much to previous Putin maneuvers. I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interests to protect countries near Russia, and 2) the US is in decline, with a giant debt that will never be paid and concerns over how it's going to keep paying social security.

Hence if you push for a similar "peace" that is very unfavorable for Ukraine, just like you did with North Vietnam and the Taleban (without caring much about South Vietnam or Afghanistan), then you embolden Russia, China and North Korea.

Hope you understand the logic. — ssu

What do you think Russia, China, and North Korea are going to do?

Yes, but I thought Afghanistan was invaded on a quest to find Osama Bin Ladin. — frank

Indeed the American response was totally different as in the first Twin Tower bombings, but you did it. As the saying goes, once you break it, you own it. But I guess now the idea is to break it, then get bored and simply walk away.

Do you think that there was nothing good was in having a Republic of Afghanistan? Do you think that it's bad that girls and women would be educated? Have you ever talked with an Afghan on how they see the rule of Taleban? I have, had a long discussion. The Afghan hated the Taleban. He was an older guy, so remembered fondly the 1970's the times before the Saur revolution. But I guess that many Afghans would have preferred democracy (of some sort) and not a theocracy is irrelevant here.

I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interest to protect countries near Russia — frank

Really?
That doesn't sound well to a Finn, or a Swede. What is so bad with something like NATO? Not only is it a successful defense pact against Russian imperialism, but it has pacified countries inside Europe. It is far more stronger than Putin's autocratic Russia. What is so wrong with that? It's an international alliance that has as it's members states that have desired to be part of the alliance. What on Earth is wrong with that? Why do need now to bow to a bloody tyrant in Russia?

2) the US is in decline, with a giant debt that will never be paid and concerns over how it's going to keep paying social security. — frank

Why embrace decline? Is cultural pessimism so trendy?

If Americans themselves don't believe in their country, who will? How will that help you not believing in your country? Remember, if you hate your country and see as many Trumpist your own institutions as the enemy, then you will be talking the Russian disinformation lines and hence the Kremlin is so victorious.

What do you think Russia, China, and North Korea are going to do? — frank

Ask first, what will you do?

If you walk away, then you will just leave Russia and China here. North Korean troops are already fighting in Europe. Chinese vessels are already cutting internet cables in the Baltic Sea connecting my country to Central Europe. The Chinese are already helping their Russian allies with the hybrid attacks. It's a constant barrage of little sabotage that didn't happen earlier. Hence the cable cutting is no accident. You don't have freak accidents happening at this pace. And you can see the "Finlandization" here at the present: nobody is saying anything against China, even if it ships have been very active.

So please understand, that this anti-US alliance is already in Europe and already engaged in hybrid warfare against the US and it's allies. And if you let Russia have Ukraine, that will only embolden this alliance to go further. You do understand that Russian leadership views the US as an enemy, but will surely use every "useful idiot" they can find.

Self-criticism in Western thinking is good if you want to improve something, if you desire to better yourself. Yet in order to do that, you have to have a positive idea of yourself. Because self-criticism also leads to depression and apathy, where you don't see anything good in yourself. And here Russian disinformation is giving a toxic narrative for people to believe: that Western Culture is dying because of liberal democracy and somehow Russia is this last champion of Western ideals. That because of US actions there's war in Ukraine. Because US actions neo nazis rule Ukraine. And that the solution to the cancer of liberal democracy is strong leaders, like Vladimir Putin.

Do you think that it's bad that girls and women would be educated? — ssu

If we had a global government, that would be an issue that could be raised.

I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interest to protect countries near Russia
— frank
Really?
That doesn't sound well to a Finn, or a Swede. — ssu

Redirect funds from social programs to defense? Although directing funds to building a fusion power plant would be better in the long run. How bad would it be if Russia took over Finland and Sweden? What would change for regular people?

If we had a global government, that would be an issue that could be raised. — frank

In the case of Afghanistan, it was raised. You don't need a global government to do this.
That women were educated, could go to work was one of things that people were proud about in the Afghan Republic. And the women's demonstrations against the Taleban did happen, which tells what many Afghans think about Theocracy. Just like the youth in Iran.

(from years ago after the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan)

Redirect funds from social programs to defense? — frank

I'll repeat. What is so wrong with having an alliance? Several countries together are stronger than one alone. And the EU is actually giving in total more money to Ukraine than the US.

Besides, the Swedes did have nuclear weapons for a while. The problem was that only in the 1970's did they produce a fighter that was capable of carrying the free fall bomb. But what really stops Putin is a force that he simply cannot win.

The US isn't a dependable partner for the EU.