So why were they wrong and you're right? Putin's not an evil guy, but Bush of Cheney or whoever we want to select was? — Echarmion

Good lord.

European leaders and negotiators played a big role in shaping the Ukraine approach, behind the scenes.

Possibly but it was still Zelensky and his team that executed it and incorporated whatever advice they got.

The problem with that line of argument is that the Russian demands have been almost exactly the same since the start of the war, and even before that.

In March/April 2022 we said "no negotiations, let's fight it out on the battlefield", and they did. Ukraine lost, and of course that's going to have a cost.

But what "free stuff" are you talking about? Aren't you aware we're fighting a bitter war over there - that it's the Ukrainians who are dying to impose a cost on Russia so we can tell ourselves some sort of fairy tale that "aggression wasn't rewarded"? This is the ego talking here, not the brain.

But even if they agreed to the 30 days outright, that would still leave open the question of where to go from there, and as far as I can see no-one has much of an idea. This is a risk for both sides but I figure that Putin thinks that he can play the West like he did after the Crimean and Donbas invasions. — Echarmion

What versions are there? How much did Iraq keep of Kuweit? How much did Germany keep after losing WWII? Or for that matter, how much did the Allies keep after WWII? Only East Germany felt oppressed and when the Mauer fell it was cause for celebration. On the face of it, there are only two options that will give us a just peace: total defeat of Russia or a negotiated peace where Russia gets nothing and Crimea is returned.

More likely, Crimea will not be returned but since that was already the status quo before the start of the last war, that is not really a bargaining chip anymore. And since any negotiation suggests compromise, Ukraine is expected to give away more. Ukraine won't do anything without security guarantees, which Trump obviously is not going to give which requires a stronger Europe. What do you give an aggressor without giving him anything? Words at most. But will it be enough?

If I turn to ReArm Europe there might be an interesting leverage here. If ReArm Europe is successful, I think Putin got exactly the opposite from what he wanted. Sure, a bit of land but suddenly a very powerful anti-Putin war machine next door. Avoiding that coalition materialising is probably worth quite something to him, which might just be the pressure he needs to go along with peace talks or at least manage that process in such a way that the willingness to arm the EU will peter out to near-nothing. That last situation is in my view a considerable risk where a lot of Europeans don't seem to understand the geopolitical landscape (in fact more than half of Dutch parlementarians don't). Weakness under pressure reveals the lack of clear vision and understanding at least in the Netherlands. The exception is Frans Timmermans but he's an academic "elitist" fronting a labour party that sold out labourers decades ago and he's not winning back their trust.

But what "free stuff" are you talking about? Aren't you aware we're fighting a bitter war over there - that it's the Ukrainians who are dying to impose a cost on Russia so we can tell ourselves some sort of fairy tale that "aggression wasn't rewarded"? This is the ego talking here, not the brain. — Tzeentch

It's free as far as Putin is concerned. Ukrainians and Russians dying aren't his problem. If you want to talk about ego, maybe you should be analysing him instead of me. You might recall I'm an international law trained lawyer; what you call "ego" is what is laid down in many treaties since Bretton-Woods. No annexation of land through force. Ever. No exemptions. If we want to move beyond a "might is right" or "real politik" system of international relations, fighting for those principles is important. Probably more important now than ever due to the shifting geopolitical power. After WWII leaders understood such a principle based relation between nations would avoid wars but most seem to have forgotten. Apparently, so have you.

Ukrainians have made a choice to fight as long as there's no certainty on containing the threat that Russia keeps posing. They've become less interested in the return of land than the beginning of the war and are now looking primarily for security guarantees. Without ReArm Europe there will be no country capable of doing so since Trump clearly isn't willing and considering his disdain for agreements made in the past, it reflects the inherent unreliability of the US political system. Relying on the US to fulfil its commitments is past.

The Europeans advised Zelenskyy following the pile on in the Oval Office. They helped him draft the letter which helped mend the relationship between Zelenskyy and Trump. They convinced Zelenskyy that he had to accept, initially, that he would have to concede Russian occupied territory and that Europe would give him full support in security guarantees, so he wouldn’t have to demand security guarantees from the U.S.
This all took a lot of intense negotiations, done in private in the week following the Oval Office incident.

International law of course is important, but applying it too rigidly is unrealistic and will have the opposite effect of making the world safer - it will make countries dismiss the idea of a shared rules-based order of international law altogether.
That's a process the West itself set in motion with its finger-wagging "rules-based order" while operating on a principle of 'rules for thee, but not for me' - synonymous for the exact 'might makes right' we're supposedly trying to avoid. The West has ZERO credibility in that regard.


Also, you've been educated on international law, so surely you have also been taught that it doesn't function in the same way a system of national law does.

Idealism that is not balanced by realism is dangerous, and leads to the very conclusions you seem to be putting forward: Ukraine must continue on the path of its own destruction, to save a 'rules-based order' which we ourselves never were sincerely committed to, and still aren't.
In fact, you seem to believe we must double down and get directly involved ourselves, risking WW3 over this 'rules-based order' we never believed in - anything short of that would be 'appeasement' and 'rewarding aggression'.

My answer to that would be: let's not.

If you're serious about this whole "making a stand" thing, I expect you'll be leading from the front?

we ourselves never were sincerely committed to, and still aren't. — Tzeentch

Name the countries that the US or European countries have invaded and (partly) annexed to their territories after the end of WW2, through war. Here are the ones for Russia:
Chechnya (Russian Federation, after wars of independence in the 1990s and early 2000s)
Abkhazia and South Ossetia (De facto control since 2008, and open for annexation, though not internationally recognized)
Crimea (Annexed in 2014, internationally unrecognized)
Donetsk and Luhansk (Annexed in 2022, though internationally unrecognized)

That's a process the West itself set in motion with its finger-wagging "rules-based order" while operating on a principle of 'rules for thee, but not for me' - synonymous for the exact 'might makes right' we're supposedly trying to avoid. The West has ZERO credibility in that regard. — Tzeentch

In your opinion. We haven't nearly reached rock bottom there mostly because of course we don't have the logistics to project military power. But the idea that inconsistent application of principles means we have no credibility is simply nonsense; there's no instance where any EU member invaded another country.

Idealism that is not balanced by realism is dangerous, and leads to the very conclusions you seem to be putting forward: Ukraine must continue on the path of its own destruction, to save a 'rules-based order' which we ourselves never were sincerely committed to, and still aren't. — Tzeentch

Don't confuse the US with the EU. The EU is committed to that order, especially within what it considers its sphere of influence. And Ukraine mustn't do anything; if they want to give up, they can. But they won't and as long as they won't, the EU should support them.

In your opinion. We haven't nearly reached rock bottom there mostly because of course we don't have the logistics to project military power. But the idea that inconsistent application of principles means we have no credibility is simply nonsense; there's no instance where any EU member invaded another country. — Benkei

Like good little schoolboys to the US, we supported invading and wrecking a whole bunch of countries - entire regions of the world even. We supported overtly genocidal regimes, and are still doing so to this day.

The idea that we have any credibility in this regard is, I'm sorry to say, laughable. The EU isn't taken seriously anywhere.

Don't confuse the US with the EU. The EU is committed to that order, especially within what it considers its sphere of influence. — Benkei

I don't see any sign of commitment. Why aren't we slapping sanctions on Israel, which is guilty of the most black and white case of systemic, large-scale human rights violations and has been for decades?

We're just selectively applying our "ideals" whenever it suits us.

When it suits us, we will "take a stand" by letting some other country fight our battles for us. But when it comes to our "allies" we are content to cry foul and angrily shake our fist, if even that.

If I turn to ReArm Europe there might be an interesting leverage here. If ReArm Europe is successful, I think Putin got exactly the opposite from what he wanted. Sure, a bit of land but suddenly a very powerful anti-Putin war machine next door. Avoiding that coalition materialising is probably worth quite something to him, which might just be the pressure he needs to go along with peace — Benkei

I think the danger of the current situation for Ukraine is that there's not much either the EU or the US is able and willing to do to pressure Russia in the short term.

There are a lot of things the US can do to pressure Ukraine in the short term.

This imbalance would be hazardous at the best of times, since there'd always be the temptation to pressure Ukraine into more concessions. With Trump it's much worse because it's obvious he wants a deal fast and he does not see any way to pressure Russia into it. He said as much, and it was also pretty clear from his reaction to Putin's polite rejection of an unconditional ceasefire.

Unfortunately, most European countries did not use the past three years of war the way they should have. It should have been possible to build the military industrial capacity, particularly in the are of munitions and drones, to create serious deterrence potential. European militaries do have deeper and harder to solve issues around manpower and certain capabilities, but pure production capacity is not a hard problem to solve.

So Europe too lacks the kind of tools it would need to make a difference. Which once again means the only thing that can be used is the threat of several more years of war until Russia is exhausted. So far Putin seems willing to take that chance.

Trump deepens NATO’s crisis of trust on sharing intel
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-crisis-slovakia-donald-trump-hungary-slovakia-national-defense-academy/

Shouldn't come as a surprise:

Russia is conducting ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ against Europe, EU chief diplomat warns
^{— Antoaneta Roussi, Laurens Cerulus · POLITICO · Mar 12, 2025}

Furthermore, European diversity makes it easier to attack.

Russian oil supplies to China down 12% in January — OPEC report
https://tass.com/economy/1926787

Despite the fact that Imperial Russia under Tsar Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine and march on Berlin — Tzeentch

That was how it started. Putin doesn't want Berlin, but he certainly thought he could take Kiev. Who would have predicted that after several years, Russia would have suffered a million casualties, have their own land taken from them, and only occupy 20% of Ukraine? Everyone thought Kiev would fall quickly.

, they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement.

Hmmm... :chin:

That's the situation now. Putin would be thrilled to walk away from this disaster with a fifth of the country. What a strategic blunder it's been for him: his military wrecked, 100,000 dead, the economy groaning under sanctions, inflation, and high interest rates, NATO expanded, an attempted coup. The war couldn't have gone better for America and Europe if we had planned it.

Yeah, now. Not back then. Back then the very people condemning Russia today were defending the US. — Mikie

A majority of House Democrats voted against the war. Obama beat out Clinton mostly because he was against the war from the start. The Democrats have been consistent in their opposition to Iraq.

They convinced Zelenskyy that he had to accept, initially, that he would have to concede Russian occupied territory — Punshhh

Why would Zelensky go for that deal? If I'm Zelensky, and I can count on EU support and probably U.S. support, aren't I hoping Russia will get tired of all this, like in Afghanistan? Or there will be another coup against Putin? Or Putin might die and be replaced by a moderate? Or the Russian economy suddenly implode? Or a WW1 style French mutiny happen? There are a lot of ways this could end in Ukraine's favor and not all of them are fanciful.

It seems to me that both sides are like exhausted bloody boxers, and Russia is ahead on points, but Ukraine is thinking, if we can hold on another three rounds, and just get a knockout blow....

The Democrats have been consistent in their opposition to Iraq. — RogueAI

Who said anything about Democrats?

And no, they’ve been far from consistent. 40% voting for the resolution in 2002 is hardly what it would receive now.

It seems to me that both sides are like exhausted bloody boxers, and Russia is ahead on points, but Ukraine is thinking, if we can hold on another three rounds, and just get a knockout blow.... — RogueAI

:lol:

Ukraine has been losing for literally years now. If you call annexing territory “losing on points,” that’s an interesting spin indeed.

Russia will keep what they’ve taken. It’s not fair, but it’s what will happen.

Who said anything about Democrats? — Mikie

There are two political parties in America. I'm pointing out that one of them has not lost it's mind when it comes to foreign policy.

40% voting for the resolution in 2002 is hardly what it would receive now. — Mikie

It would receive 0 support. Are you saying the Democrat party now would support a war against Iraq? Or Iran?

There are two political parties in America. — RogueAI

And who said anything about political parties?

Ukraine has been losing for literally years now. If you call annexing territory “losing on points,” that’s an interesting spin indeed. — Mikie

Afghanistan was losing for years too. Until they weren't. That's my point.

Russia will keep what they’ve taken. It’s not fair, but it’s what will happen. — Mikie

Maybe. Or maybe Putin has a date with an open window in the near future.

It would receive 0 support. Are you saying the Democrat party now would support a war against Iraq? Or Iran? — RogueAI

They would likely support a war against Iran, many of them. They’ve already thrown in their support for genocide. We call that “sane” behavior now.

They would likely support a war against Iran, many of them. — Mikie

The Democrats would support a war against Iran??? Do you live in America?

Maybe. — RogueAI

Well yes. Maybe the Chinese forget about Taiwan too. Who knows?

The Democrats would support a war against Iran??? — RogueAI

40% supported a war against Iraq. So why not?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-toward-israelis.aspx

46 is more than 33. But glad to see the popularity of genocide slipping downward a bit.

That's Americans total. We were talking about Democrats, remember? You claim they would support a war against Iran.

"In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?"
Democrats: Israel 21%, Palestinians 59%.

Do you see why what you said was really stupid? Democrats would not support a war against Iran.