8 ms·

Most here will not like that opinion, but I think this is essentially a good thing, it will eventually end this war - at huge costs for Ukraine. The fault of th

Most here will not like that opinion, but I think this is essentially a good thing, it will eventually end this war - at huge costs for Ukraine. The fault of the USA is not that they now pressure Ukraine towards ending this war, the fault of the USA was that they did not accept Russia's demand - or at least tried to find an acceptable compromise - for Ukraine not to join NATO which caused this tragedy.

kubb 2y ago
Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
- danbruc 2y ago
  Who said they are? The official position of NATO was that Ukraine will eventually join NATO while Russia demanded that Ukraine will not join NATO. Contrary to the western mainstream opinion, I think that is why Putin started this war, to prevent Ukraine joining NATO, not to grab some land.
  - kubb 2y ago
    You said it: > the fault of the USA was that they did not accept Russia's demand - or at least tried to find an acceptable compromise - for Ukraine not to join NATO which caused this tragedy The US basically accepted that demand, and Russia still attacked Ukraine. They wanted the land no matter what.
    - danbruc 2y ago
      What do you mean with basically accepted that demand? Give me a source and I will stand corrected. I have stayed away from discussing this war for a long time since the outcome is pretty predictable given my point of view, so I forgot a lot of the details from when I carefully researched the topic. But as far as I remember, there was not hint of willingness to accommodate Russian demands.
      - kubb 2y ago
        The demand is met by Ukraine not being in NATO. You can see the list of NATO members here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO If Ukraine joined NATO - that would be disregarding Russian demands. Russia just didn't want Ukraine to join because they wanted to annex the eastern part of it. Having it in NATO would mean that they couldn't do that. Of course they're opposed to Ukraine joining even after that annexation - they'll take more land if they can get it. They don't care about human lives, will regroup, recover, and attack again.
        danbruc 2y ago
        With all due respect, that is a really stupid argument. The official NATO position was that Ukraine will eventually become a NATO member, Bucharest summit 2008. That position remained unchanged, at least until the beginning of the Russian invasion. The Russian demand was and probably is, that Ukraine will not become a NATO member in the future, not that it is not a NATO member right now. To the best of my knowledge, NATO has never stated that it will not bar Ukraine from joining NATO indefinitely or something even remotely similar. And while you think Russia just wanted the territory, I think Russia just does not want US troops or weapons at their borders, just as the USA would probably not enjoy Chinese troops or weapons in Mexico. Or how they did not like Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. Or how they in 2022 threatened consequences to Solomon Islands - 10,000 km from US borders - if they allowed China to establish a military base.
        kubb 2y ago
        There are already 6 NATO countries on the border with Russia, I'm shocked that you don't know this. If Ukraine became a member before 2014, we wouldn't have had this horrible war, but Russia was controlling Ukraine's political class, and making threats to NATO countries against them joining. Especially against Germany who was reliant on Russian gas imports. I can see that you're determined to believe that Russia is just defending itself here by attacking preemptively, and you will probably support any action by them, including a full annexation, and attribute it to their reasonable intentions. No need to pretend that you have respect for me... But in reality what's happening is that you're dismissing information that doesn't fit in your worldview, by disparaging the person who presents them to you.
rich_sasha 2y ago
Assuming you're writing in good faith: Russia has already signed a treaty confirming Ukraine's sovereignty and its borders. Then ignored it and attacked - twice. First time it also pretended it wasn't them, until they turned around and said, "haha, actually it was". Russia does not hold up bargains, so there is no positive utility in giving them things.
- danbruc 2y ago
  That is a very weak argument, in my opinion. What if Ukraine attacked Russia, would you still expected Russia not to step into Ukraine while fighting back? Countries pull out of and break treaties all the time when the circumstances change. After all, all laws and rights and agreements and treaties are just ink on paper and they are worth nothing without the will and power to enforce them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    Circumstances didn't change though. Ukrainian borders were guaranteed by Russia and US (and some European countries too I think) unconditionally. Ukraine didn't attack Russia, quite the opposite. And as per my first post, in the first attack Russia didn't even pretend they had a cause - they pretended it wasn't them. > treaties [...] are worth nothing without the will and power to enforce them Well, precisely. Russia has demonstrated time and again that they don't honor agreements. Any agreement where you give Russia something today in exchange for something tomorrow just doesn't work.
    - danbruc 2y ago
      Circumstances did not change? I am not too familiar with those treaties but I assume you are referring to the treaties in the context of Ukraine surrendering Soviet nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War, correct? At that time the Soviets almost certainly did not consider the possibility of their neighbor becoming a NATO member and potentially ending up with US troops and weapons at their border. Circumstances most certainly changed since then.
fullshark 2y ago
And how is "ending the war" certain after a cease fire and not just a temporary pause in Putin's quest to eliminiate Ukraine/opposition and annex/install a puppet ruler there?
- danbruc 2y ago
  Nothing is certain. I say this because I think that the mainstream point of view - that Putin is an expansionist and will conquer whatever he can - is wrong. If I am wrong with that and the mainstream opinion is correct, than it is of course a potentially [1] bad idea to end the war. [1] I say potentially because even in the case that Russia will attack again, it is not obvious that ending the war for now is bad for Ukraine. Maybe they could grow their military potential quicker than Russia and be in a relatively better position in the future.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    How do you square your beliefs with the fact that Russia took Crimea, decided that wasn't enough, and went back for more?
    - danbruc 2y ago
      The NATO declaration from the 2008 Bucharest Summit was that Georgia and Ukraine will eventually become NATO members, both unacceptable for Russia. Georgia was promptly invaded in 2008. Until 2014 under president Yanukovych Ukraine did not seek closer ties to NATO. That changed in 2014 and Russia annexed Crimea. [1] While Russia wanted the Minsk agreements to work, the West just used them as tools to buy more time. Despite repeated protests and demands from Russia right until the invasion, NATO position did not show any signs of change. So in my opinion that is all just escalation to get NATO to accept the demands or prevent a NATO membership with force. Even in the negotiation in the first weeks of the war, Russia was willing to end the war for non-membership of Ukraine. [1] The timeline in late 2013 and 2014 is somewhat confusing with respect to my point of view, the turn towards NATO seems to come after the annexation and the events in eastern Ukraine. But there might have been an element of anticipation or non-public information.
echelon 2y ago
Ukraine wants security guarantees. A ceasefire without security guarantees is an opportunity for Russia to resupply and attack again.
- danbruc 2y ago
  They will not get any. Let us be real, nobody really cares about Ukraine. If a country truly cared, they would have sent their own troops towards Ukraine on day one of the invasion. Nobody will agree to potentially fight in a war against a nuclear [super] power to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Except for the nukes, there is nothing super about the Russian army. Except maybe access to vodka, that seems to be a very high priority.
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      The nukes might be important, though. You might as well be saying "If he weren't pointing a gun at me..."
- angryreader 2y ago
  [flagged]

kubb 2y ago

Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

danbruc 2y ago
Who said they are? The official position of NATO was that Ukraine will eventually join NATO while Russia demanded that Ukraine will not join NATO. Contrary to the western mainstream opinion, I think that is why Putin started this war, to prevent Ukraine joining NATO, not to grab some land.
- kubb 2y ago
  You said it: > the fault of the USA was that they did not accept Russia's demand - or at least tried to find an acceptable compromise - for Ukraine not to join NATO which caused this tragedy The US basically accepted that demand, and Russia still attacked Ukraine. They wanted the land no matter what.
  - danbruc 2y ago
    What do you mean with basically accepted that demand? Give me a source and I will stand corrected. I have stayed away from discussing this war for a long time since the outcome is pretty predictable given my point of view, so I forgot a lot of the details from when I carefully researched the topic. But as far as I remember, there was not hint of willingness to accommodate Russian demands.
    - kubb 2y ago
      The demand is met by Ukraine not being in NATO. You can see the list of NATO members here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO If Ukraine joined NATO - that would be disregarding Russian demands. Russia just didn't want Ukraine to join because they wanted to annex the eastern part of it. Having it in NATO would mean that they couldn't do that. Of course they're opposed to Ukraine joining even after that annexation - they'll take more land if they can get it. They don't care about human lives, will regroup, recover, and attack again.
      - danbruc 2y ago
        With all due respect, that is a really stupid argument. The official NATO position was that Ukraine will eventually become a NATO member, Bucharest summit 2008. That position remained unchanged, at least until the beginning of the Russian invasion. The Russian demand was and probably is, that Ukraine will not become a NATO member in the future, not that it is not a NATO member right now. To the best of my knowledge, NATO has never stated that it will not bar Ukraine from joining NATO indefinitely or something even remotely similar. And while you think Russia just wanted the territory, I think Russia just does not want US troops or weapons at their borders, just as the USA would probably not enjoy Chinese troops or weapons in Mexico. Or how they did not like Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. Or how they in 2022 threatened consequences to Solomon Islands - 10,000 km from US borders - if they allowed China to establish a military base.
        kubb 2y ago
        There are already 6 NATO countries on the border with Russia, I'm shocked that you don't know this. If Ukraine became a member before 2014, we wouldn't have had this horrible war, but Russia was controlling Ukraine's political class, and making threats to NATO countries against them joining. Especially against Germany who was reliant on Russian gas imports. I can see that you're determined to believe that Russia is just defending itself here by attacking preemptively, and you will probably support any action by them, including a full annexation, and attribute it to their reasonable intentions. No need to pretend that you have respect for me... But in reality what's happening is that you're dismissing information that doesn't fit in your worldview, by disparaging the person who presents them to you.

rich_sasha 2y ago

Assuming you're writing in good faith: Russia has already signed a treaty confirming Ukraine's sovereignty and its borders. Then ignored it and attacked - twice. First time it also pretended it wasn't them, until they turned around and said, "haha, actually it was". Russia does not hold up bargains, so there is no positive utility in giving them things.

danbruc 2y ago
That is a very weak argument, in my opinion. What if Ukraine attacked Russia, would you still expected Russia not to step into Ukraine while fighting back? Countries pull out of and break treaties all the time when the circumstances change. After all, all laws and rights and agreements and treaties are just ink on paper and they are worth nothing without the will and power to enforce them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Circumstances didn't change though. Ukrainian borders were guaranteed by Russia and US (and some European countries too I think) unconditionally. Ukraine didn't attack Russia, quite the opposite. And as per my first post, in the first attack Russia didn't even pretend they had a cause - they pretended it wasn't them. > treaties [...] are worth nothing without the will and power to enforce them Well, precisely. Russia has demonstrated time and again that they don't honor agreements. Any agreement where you give Russia something today in exchange for something tomorrow just doesn't work.
  - danbruc 2y ago
    Circumstances did not change? I am not too familiar with those treaties but I assume you are referring to the treaties in the context of Ukraine surrendering Soviet nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War, correct? At that time the Soviets almost certainly did not consider the possibility of their neighbor becoming a NATO member and potentially ending up with US troops and weapons at their border. Circumstances most certainly changed since then.

fullshark 2y ago

And how is "ending the war" certain after a cease fire and not just a temporary pause in Putin's quest to eliminiate Ukraine/opposition and annex/install a puppet ruler there?

danbruc 2y ago
Nothing is certain. I say this because I think that the mainstream point of view - that Putin is an expansionist and will conquer whatever he can - is wrong. If I am wrong with that and the mainstream opinion is correct, than it is of course a potentially [1] bad idea to end the war. [1] I say potentially because even in the case that Russia will attack again, it is not obvious that ending the war for now is bad for Ukraine. Maybe they could grow their military potential quicker than Russia and be in a relatively better position in the future.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  How do you square your beliefs with the fact that Russia took Crimea, decided that wasn't enough, and went back for more?
  - danbruc 2y ago
    The NATO declaration from the 2008 Bucharest Summit was that Georgia and Ukraine will eventually become NATO members, both unacceptable for Russia. Georgia was promptly invaded in 2008. Until 2014 under president Yanukovych Ukraine did not seek closer ties to NATO. That changed in 2014 and Russia annexed Crimea. [1] While Russia wanted the Minsk agreements to work, the West just used them as tools to buy more time. Despite repeated protests and demands from Russia right until the invasion, NATO position did not show any signs of change. So in my opinion that is all just escalation to get NATO to accept the demands or prevent a NATO membership with force. Even in the negotiation in the first weeks of the war, Russia was willing to end the war for non-membership of Ukraine. [1] The timeline in late 2013 and 2014 is somewhat confusing with respect to my point of view, the turn towards NATO seems to come after the annexation and the events in eastern Ukraine. But there might have been an element of anticipation or non-public information.

echelon 2y ago

Ukraine wants security guarantees. A ceasefire without security guarantees is an opportunity for Russia to resupply and attack again.

danbruc 2y ago
They will not get any. Let us be real, nobody really cares about Ukraine. If a country truly cared, they would have sent their own troops towards Ukraine on day one of the invasion. Nobody will agree to potentially fight in a war against a nuclear [super] power to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Except for the nukes, there is nothing super about the Russian army. Except maybe access to vodka, that seems to be a very high priority.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    The nukes might be important, though. You might as well be saying "If he weren't pointing a gun at me..."
angryreader 2y ago
[flagged]