3 ms·

Yep. The informed analysis around the NATO ultimatum before the invasion was that it was not in good-faith. It was a non-starter to be used as another pretext,

Yep. The informed analysis around the NATO ultimatum before the invasion was that it was not in good-faith. It was a non-starter to be used as another pretext, not actually something NATO can fulfill all of, or even if they did, wouldn't deter the problems Russian kleptocracy are facing (a prosperous west-aligned Ukraine, like Poland, that shows their neighbors they are being swindled by corrupt oligarchs.)

brabel 3y ago
I think that any war starts when the demands of one side are considered as "non-starters" to the other side. If that was not the case, there simply would be no war.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Well Ukraine was invaded, but they aren't a part of NATO. You should take into account there are times when war can be avoided by compromise, and there are times when the "demands" are essentially "give us all territory, sovereignty, and resources." If you would like to lump those together as the victim not negotiating enough because the aggressor submitted "non-starters," that's on you. If you actually want to understand the problems with the Russian invasion-pretext demands at the time, there's https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527
  - brabel 3y ago
    > and there are times when the "demands" are essentially "give us all territory, sovereignty, and resources." This was not one of those times. If you look at the demands in the ultimatum, Ukraine actually just had to NOT do anything (e.g. do not continue process to join NATO).
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > If you look at the demands in the ultimatum, Ukraine actually just had to NOT do anything (e.g. do not continue process to join NATO). First, this ultimatum was after (by 7 years) the beginning of rhe invasion, not before. Second, the content described is false. In fact, while the threat was implicitly directed at Ukraine, and that’s where the escalation of the ongoing war occurred, the ultimatum’s demands were directed largely at other countries: it demanded that NATO make a binding commitment not to admit any new members (with no time limit) especially Ukraine and Georgia [0], and that NATO make a binding commitment not to deploy additional non-local troops in existing NATO member-states, that NATO withdraw troops and infrastructure from states, including NATO members, that were former members of the Soviet Union, that NATO recognize a special Russian role in ensuring stability and security among the former Soviet states, that Russia receive international guarantees of respect for its sovereignty and territorial security, including over Crimea (which it was illegally occupying and had claimed to annex) and the Donbass (wherr it was sponsoring separatists but had not yet formally claimed to annex), and the establishment of a moratorium on short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, and reforms of the OSCE. [0] this part alone was an major expansion of the 2008 ultimatum not to offer MAPs at that tine to Ukraine and Georgia which, when NATO acceded to when it was made, Russia immediately invaded Georgia.
      - brabel 3y ago
        Read what you've just written and tell me how that equates to "when the "demands" are essentially "give us all territory, sovereignty, and resources."!!! The Russian demands amounted basically to getting the guarantees they "believed" they had when the USSR collapsed but that were never fully accepted by NATO [1]. I agree they were unrealistic, as to make such demands Russia would need to actually have the upper hand militarily, which it hasn't had even before it was still the USSR. However, saying that they were unacceptable offhand was a clear sign that NATO didn't respect Russia even enough to sit and have a talk. That's the modern equivalent of defenestrating [2] the Russians. They knew they wouldn't get all their demands, but probably expected to get "something" (perhaps a new Treat with Ukraine that ensured it didn't join NATO - would that be better than a multi-year war?? I say absolutely!!) - but all they got was a big fuck you. Invading Ukraine was irrational, I totally agree with that as clearly it would cause a huge divide in the world that just didn't need to come back, but after being thrown out of the window when approaching for negotiations, I suppose that's not exactly unexpected. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220222223845/https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#c203 https://web.archive.org/web/20220222223845/https://www.nato.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague

brabel 3y ago

I think that any war starts when the demands of one side are considered as "non-starters" to the other side. If that was not the case, there simply would be no war.

reducesuffering 3y ago
Well Ukraine was invaded, but they aren't a part of NATO. You should take into account there are times when war can be avoided by compromise, and there are times when the "demands" are essentially "give us all territory, sovereignty, and resources." If you would like to lump those together as the victim not negotiating enough because the aggressor submitted "non-starters," that's on you. If you actually want to understand the problems with the Russian invasion-pretext demands at the time, there's https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527
- brabel 3y ago
  > and there are times when the "demands" are essentially "give us all territory, sovereignty, and resources." This was not one of those times. If you look at the demands in the ultimatum, Ukraine actually just had to NOT do anything (e.g. do not continue process to join NATO).
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > If you look at the demands in the ultimatum, Ukraine actually just had to NOT do anything (e.g. do not continue process to join NATO). First, this ultimatum was after (by 7 years) the beginning of rhe invasion, not before. Second, the content described is false. In fact, while the threat was implicitly directed at Ukraine, and that’s where the escalation of the ongoing war occurred, the ultimatum’s demands were directed largely at other countries: it demanded that NATO make a binding commitment not to admit any new members (with no time limit) especially Ukraine and Georgia [0], and that NATO make a binding commitment not to deploy additional non-local troops in existing NATO member-states, that NATO withdraw troops and infrastructure from states, including NATO members, that were former members of the Soviet Union, that NATO recognize a special Russian role in ensuring stability and security among the former Soviet states, that Russia receive international guarantees of respect for its sovereignty and territorial security, including over Crimea (which it was illegally occupying and had claimed to annex) and the Donbass (wherr it was sponsoring separatists but had not yet formally claimed to annex), and the establishment of a moratorium on short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, and reforms of the OSCE. [0] this part alone was an major expansion of the 2008 ultimatum not to offer MAPs at that tine to Ukraine and Georgia which, when NATO acceded to when it was made, Russia immediately invaded Georgia.
    - brabel 3y ago
      Read what you've just written and tell me how that equates to "when the "demands" are essentially "give us all territory, sovereignty, and resources."!!! The Russian demands amounted basically to getting the guarantees they "believed" they had when the USSR collapsed but that were never fully accepted by NATO [1]. I agree they were unrealistic, as to make such demands Russia would need to actually have the upper hand militarily, which it hasn't had even before it was still the USSR. However, saying that they were unacceptable offhand was a clear sign that NATO didn't respect Russia even enough to sit and have a talk. That's the modern equivalent of defenestrating [2] the Russians. They knew they wouldn't get all their demands, but probably expected to get "something" (perhaps a new Treat with Ukraine that ensured it didn't join NATO - would that be better than a multi-year war?? I say absolutely!!) - but all they got was a big fuck you. Invading Ukraine was irrational, I totally agree with that as clearly it would cause a huge divide in the world that just didn't need to come back, but after being thrown out of the window when approaching for negotiations, I suppose that's not exactly unexpected. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220222223845/https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#c203 https://web.archive.org/web/20220222223845/https://www.nato.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague