7 ms·

They already do all those things except nukes. I cannot emphasise this enough, they already do everything that they can. Conclusion is return to at least Feb20

They already do all those things except nukes. I cannot emphasise this enough, they already do everything that they can. Conclusion is return to at least Feb2022 borders, preferably 1991 borders. We have the international law for a reason, everyone agreed to this law (including the USSR) after WW2.

danbruc 4y ago
Okay, let's not argue about the extend of the war, I am still not convinced that it could not get a lot worse, but if it already is as bad as it can get, that would - in a certain way - be a good thing as it can not get any worse, at least besides lasting longer. This leaves the question, is your proposed end acceptable for Putin? In essence your are saying, if I do not misunderstand you, undo the last year, at the very least. What makes you believe that Putin would judge the situation differently this time, i.e. that this situation does not warrant the invasion of Ukraine?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  The reality of the situation is that Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. This has been clear to every observer since about March. Yet Russia has not attempted to moderate its political aims to reflect its actual military capabilities, and I think it is unwise for Ukraine or anybody else to humor Russia by considering these unrealistic aims as a viable starting position for negotiations. Sadly, given the delusions of Putin, this means having to prolong the war in Ukraine. Delivering yet more decisive defeats of the Russian military is likely to be the only thing that can shock him into realizing that what he wants is unachievable and he has to adjust his aims to reality.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    [...] Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. What do you think this political aims are?
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. There's also damaging "the evil West" in whatever way is possible, mostly by subverting the democratic processes. They did help with a few political movements (help, not necessarily start), we have evidence for that on both sides of the Atlantic. This goal probably didn't change.
      - rainworld 4y ago
        In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. You’re so anxious to proclaim this over, when the main course hasn’t even begun. And, having read the Zalushny interview, you should know full well that what they need amounts to yet another army, their third in this conflict pretty much. And there’s no indication that they will get it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - danbruc 4y ago
        This seems a reasonable explanation to me, the troop size used is much more compatible with going after the government than wanting to conquer the entire country.
        jcranmer 4y ago
        Russia believed that it could achieve a lightning-fast invasion of Kyiv that would enable them to install whichever puppets they wanted, and appear to have put more effort into planning their new puppet government than the actual military invasion. They still do not have the necessary military force to conquer Kyiv, which is a necessary precondition for achieving regime change. However, even a conquest of Kyiv isn't necessarily sufficient to effect regime change; you'd need to demonstrate control of sufficient parts of the country to make a rump government or government-in-exile infeasible. That's likely to require controlling more or less everything east of the Dniper, Kyiv, and Odesa. Or basically everything outside of Western Ukraine around Lviv. In short, Russia did not have anywhere near the military force needed to achieve even their most limited war aims if Ukraine were able to put together any kind of defensive force (which they did).
justsomehnguy 4y ago
>We have the international law for a reason, everyone agreed to this law (including the USSR) after WW2. You can start with 'totally not a blockade': > By using the term "quarantine", rather than "blockade" (an act of war by legal definition), the United States was able to avoid the implications of a state of war.
- danbruc 4y ago
  Also international laws or laws in general are not worth the paper they are written on unless you have the power and will to enforce them.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  A blockade is the use of force to prevent other nations from trading with somebody. It has never been an act of war to stop your own citizens from trading with somebody.

danbruc 4y ago

Okay, let's not argue about the extend of the war, I am still not convinced that it could not get a lot worse, but if it already is as bad as it can get, that would - in a certain way - be a good thing as it can not get any worse, at least besides lasting longer. This leaves the question, is your proposed end acceptable for Putin? In essence your are saying, if I do not misunderstand you, undo the last year, at the very least. What makes you believe that Putin would judge the situation differently this time, i.e. that this situation does not warrant the invasion of Ukraine?

jcranmer 4y ago
The reality of the situation is that Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. This has been clear to every observer since about March. Yet Russia has not attempted to moderate its political aims to reflect its actual military capabilities, and I think it is unwise for Ukraine or anybody else to humor Russia by considering these unrealistic aims as a viable starting position for negotiations. Sadly, given the delusions of Putin, this means having to prolong the war in Ukraine. Delivering yet more decisive defeats of the Russian military is likely to be the only thing that can shock him into realizing that what he wants is unachievable and he has to adjust his aims to reality.
- danbruc 4y ago
  [...] Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. What do you think this political aims are?
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. There's also damaging "the evil West" in whatever way is possible, mostly by subverting the democratic processes. They did help with a few political movements (help, not necessarily start), we have evidence for that on both sides of the Atlantic. This goal probably didn't change.
    - rainworld 4y ago
      In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. You’re so anxious to proclaim this over, when the main course hasn’t even begun. And, having read the Zalushny interview, you should know full well that what they need amounts to yet another army, their third in this conflict pretty much. And there’s no indication that they will get it.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - danbruc 4y ago
      This seems a reasonable explanation to me, the troop size used is much more compatible with going after the government than wanting to conquer the entire country.
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        Russia believed that it could achieve a lightning-fast invasion of Kyiv that would enable them to install whichever puppets they wanted, and appear to have put more effort into planning their new puppet government than the actual military invasion. They still do not have the necessary military force to conquer Kyiv, which is a necessary precondition for achieving regime change. However, even a conquest of Kyiv isn't necessarily sufficient to effect regime change; you'd need to demonstrate control of sufficient parts of the country to make a rump government or government-in-exile infeasible. That's likely to require controlling more or less everything east of the Dniper, Kyiv, and Odesa. Or basically everything outside of Western Ukraine around Lviv. In short, Russia did not have anywhere near the military force needed to achieve even their most limited war aims if Ukraine were able to put together any kind of defensive force (which they did).

justsomehnguy 4y ago

>We have the international law for a reason, everyone agreed to this law (including the USSR) after WW2. You can start with 'totally not a blockade': > By using the term "quarantine", rather than "blockade" (an act of war by legal definition), the United States was able to avoid the implications of a state of war.

danbruc 4y ago
Also international laws or laws in general are not worth the paper they are written on unless you have the power and will to enforce them.
mannerheim 4y ago
A blockade is the use of force to prevent other nations from trading with somebody. It has never been an act of war to stop your own citizens from trading with somebody.