5 ms·

> Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war You don’t “work with Russia”. You either surrender

• tsimionescu 4y ago
  And yet Finland, Germany, even France, China - all managed to work with Russia decently well, at least before the current desperate show of force from Putin.
  • Zanfa 4y ago
    Finland is probably the only exception to the rule and only because they managed to kick a lot of russian ass back in the day. China is significantly more powerful player than Russia. Germany and France don’t share a border with russia.
    • riku_iki 4y ago
      > Germany and France don’t share a border with russia. Its more they are part of NATO, which Russia not ready to confront directly.
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      I also forgot Mongolia and Kazakhstan on the list of nations that are neither Russian puppets nor in danger of invasion. And further out, Russia has good relations with India as well (not sure about Pakistan). To be fair, there were some significant disagreements between Kazakhstan and Russia after Putin made comments about their traditional statehood, prompting several threats from their own authoritarian leader, but when Kazakh leadership felt threatened by protesters, they appealed to Russia for troops to quell the popular revolt.
  • riku_iki 4y ago
    > And yet Finland Finland could perfectly be next Russia's target after Ukraine. They just don't have enough resources at the moment.
  • jollybean 4y ago
    Finland, Germany, France and China are sovereign nations. Putin required the direct vassalage and control of Ukraine, much like he does with Belarus. Ukraine obviously posed no material threat to Russia. The attempted conflation of those different scenarios is intellectually repulsive.
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      > Putin required the direct vassalage and control of Ukraine, much like he does with Belarus. While this would have obviously been Putin's strong preference, it's hard to say whether he would have accepted a compromise solution, with Ukraine being committed to neutrality. As it is though, Ukraine got rid of Putin's puppet with significant US involvement (but also popular will), and then became committed to doing everything it could to join NATO - working very closely with them in the meantime. > Ukraine obviously posed no material threat to Russia. A neutral Ukraine would have not, but NATO bases in Ukraine would pose an extraordinary threat to Russia, given NATO's hostility, overwhelming military might, and Ukraine's geographical position, with a direct line of access to Moscow that has been exploited in all previous major western invasions of Russia (newly by Hitler and Napoleon). Finland proved that a country at Russia's border can maintain decent relations with Russia without becoming a puppet state, as long as they don't join hostile military alliances. Mongolia and to a lesser extent Kazakhstan on the other side of the world are similar examples.
      • CamperBob2 4y ago
        A neutral Ukraine would have not, but NATO bases in Ukraine would pose an extraordinary threat to Russia Russia has several thousand thermonuclear weapons, a couple dozen of which might actually work. Consequently, the only conceivable threat to Russia is the man currently occupying the Kremlin. No one else can lay a finger on Russia.
      • jollybean 4y ago
        No, again, NATO, even bases in Ukraine are is a material threat to Russia, or not much more so than before. Again, everyone knows this. The Russians know this, we know they know, they know we know they know. Due to interference in Ukraine, Russia now has another 1000km NATO border with Ukraine, that could (may very well) host nuclear weapons. And yet what was Putin's reaction? 'Ok, that's fine'. Russia's posture that '1000km of NATO border with Finland is no big deal, but 1000Km of NATO border with Ukraine is enough to invade a country' is bullshit at face value. The 'NATO' issue has a 'tiny bit' of validity, in that, yes, it's advantageous for Russia to have a material 'buffer zone' - definitely - but it's not enough to substantiate the invasion. Moreover - Ukraine was not really trending towards NATO. NATO denied them entry before, and likely would have denied them in the future, because the West/NATO doesn't really need/want bases in Ukraine. What the West wants, is just for Ukraine not to be a vassal of Russia. In short - the 'default situation' that Russia said it so desperately wanted, i.e. a 'buffer zone' - was what the Russians had. A 2022 'negotiation' would likely have yielded nothing. The West would probably have accepted 'No NATO' for Ukraine, but required in return 1) get out of Crimea, and Donbas and 2) No interference in Ukraine politics etc. whatsoever. Russia would not agree to #1, and would agree to #2, but then not heed the agreement. The reality is, Putin/Russia have had plans to re-conquer Ukraine (and whatever else) since the breakup of the USSR. Putin's 'special operation' in Ukraine is the same as it was for Hungary and Czech, i.e. put those stupid fledgling paupers under our thumb, part of the Empire. In their cynical view of the world, everyone is a vassal of either them or the US, and that's it. I don't see how any negotiation with Putin would have resulted in anything. The best thing to do might have been to put NATO Air Patrols and Air Defence over Ukraine (At least West of Dnipro), train them on F16s, MLRS, M777 etc.. and then if Putin decides to invade, back it up with tit-for-tat i.e. if Russia launches Kaliber, then NATO launches cruise missiles, if Russia has S300, then NATO uses Patriot, if Russia blockades Odessa, the NATO blockades Crimea. Ukraine pre-trained on patriots, stingers, mid-range AA, American mannned Patriots, NATO Air Superiority over most of Ukraine, tons of arty, pre-trained MLRS units, and a lot of trained troops ... this war would be over.