Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[FPV MIC]

Because any agreement that doesn't reset borders to before the invasion of Crimea (or at the very least, the start of 2022) validates Putin's agression.
If I broke into your house and stole a bunch of your stuff, would you call it square if I gave some of it back and walked away?

Or better yet, break into his house, set up shop in his lounge room, throw **** at every other room in the house and trash it, kill his cat, then get an political agreement that's it all square and continue to live in his lounge room.

Seems fair

 

[sirjim73]

I guess my main concern at the moment is. No we definitely should NOT be negotiating with Putler now. But what do we do in 5 even 10 years time when Putler or his successor is around and this war is still going on?

From what I've seen over the last 18 months (this war has ALREADY lasted 1.5 years, so why not another 10?), Russia isn't going to win this war. And Ukraine isn't going to win this war either, as much as we'd all like to hope it will (I'm referring to a Ukraine win as Russia leaving all Ukraine territory including Crimea).

In my mind, what we're going to end up with ultimately is another Korea situation. And by the way the Korean war is now 73 years old (there has never been an official end to the war only a ceasefire). And Korea is still split in two.

At this point I fully expect Ukraine to be split in two in 2096 which is a depressing thought.

I'm pretty sure the consensus in 1950 was "we will not negotiate with N Korea". And in 1951. And in 1952. But ultimately that did change.

We can stick our fingers in our ears and pretend, but if the war continues indefinitely (and I'm concerned the evidence is suggesting to me that it will), at some point we would HAVE to negotiate with Russia. But the timing of that decision has to rest with UKRAINE not us.

Before then what can be affected is the position Ukraine holds when those negotiations begin. So our priority in my mind is to get Ukraine in as strong a bargaining position as possible. And continue to provide them with arms and support in order to achieve that.

And hope something happens in Russia to cause an end to the war. But again does anyone REALLY think Putler is going anywhere in the near future? And even if he did get replaced the whole setup in Russia is designed to replace one dictator with another. Who is likely to be just as much of a problem.

Sometimes when reading this thread it feels like wishful thinking is going on. At some point we might have to hold our nose even if we really don't want to.

The only chance for the "right" outcome here seems to be the Russian people (or more likely the oligarchs) doing something pretty major. But outside of the bollocks in the Daily Express headlines, I've not seen any sign of that happening anytime soon.

Sorry this is not what I want to hear either, but I suspect it's where this is all going eventually.

 

[Imari]

In my mind, what we're going to end up with ultimately is another Korea situation. And by the way the Korean war is now 73 years old (there has never been an official end to the war only a ceasefire). And Korea is still split in two.

The history of how Korea got to what it is today is pretty unique. I don't see much to suggest that Ukraine and Russia would necessarily be headed to the same conclusions.

 

[eran0004]

From a BBC News article about the West’s depleting ammunition stockpiles:

“Such is Kyiv's dependence on US ammunition that there are real concerns among Nato allies about the possibility of Donald Trump being re-elected president next year.

They fear that US military support for Ukraine might diminish if Mr Trump were to seek some kind of political settlement with Moscow.”

I’m no Trump fan, but surely this would be preferable? I can see why ‘giving into Putin’ or whatever might make his actions seem justifiable - but any kind of peaceful resolution to this conflict is surely the best course. Both sides are fighting mostly with conscripts at this point. Ordinary guys, who I’m sure would rather not be there, being killed and wounded en masse in ‘the meatgrinder’.

Why the hell not seek a political settlement with Moscow? For all of Trump’s faults at least he managed to cool Kin Jong Un’s jets when he went over to have a word with him when he was posturing like a fool back then. If he can do the same with Putin then vote him in and let him try for God’s sake.

Peace sounds great at first glance. But you’ve got to think about on whose terms it would be. Stopping delivery of ammunition to Ukraine most likely means unconditional surrender and Russia will either annex the whole country or turn it into a puppet state. Then they will move on to Moldova, Georgia and perhaps even Lithuania if they are bold enough.

The only peaceful solution is defeat of the Russian armed forces and a change of leadership in Moscow.

Think about what would happen if everyone surrendered unconditionally to Hitler. Would it be a more peaceful world?

As for Trump and North Korea, as far as I remember he almost provoked a nuclear war via Twitter before they made friends again.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

Because any agreement that doesn't reset borders to before the invasion of Crimea (or at the very least, the start of 2022) validates Putin's agression.
If I broke into your house and stole a bunch of your stuff, would you call it square if I gave some of it back and walked away?

Cute analogy, meanwhile tens of thousands of ordinary men - and now women because they’re starting to run out of men - are being forced to fight and die in this conflict. On both sides. It needs to end. It’s insane how i seem to be the only one trying to see things from their perspective.

 

[Liquid]

Tens of thousands of ordinary men - and now women because they’re starting to run out of men - are being forced to fight and die in this conflict.

...because of Russia.

 

[McLaren]

For all of Trump’s faults at least he managed to cool Kin Jong Un’s jets when he went over to have a word with him when he was posturing like a fool back then.

Well he was testing nukes and stuff, throwing threats around, creating tension on the border to SK. He did pretty much stop all that after Big Don gave him a knock at the door. Not exactly the same situation, but you’ve got to wonder what a different president might’ve done about him. Maybe they’d have armed SK to the teeth and egged them on.

I don't know why people buy into this nonsense. N. Korea has said Trump used them for political brownie points with nothing in return.

The question is whether there will be a need to keep holding hands shaken in Singapore, as we see that there is nothing of factual improvement to be made in the DPRK-U.S. relations simply by maintaining personal relations between our Supreme Leadership and the U.S. President.

In retrospect, all the practices of the present U.S. administration so far are nothing but accumulating its political achievements.

Never again will we provide the U.S. chief executive with another package to be used for achievements without receiving any returns.

Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise.

Newstream | KCNA Watch

kcnawatch.org

Photos were released of North Korea's demolition Tuesday of a liaison office it jointly operates with South Korea, a sign of escalating tensions between the neighboring nations.

The office building, located in the North Korean border town of Kaesong, was erected just two years ago, in 2018, to serve as a breeding ground for diplomacy between the two countries.
---
Tuesday's action follows a statement from North Korea saying that it was formally abandoning attempts to pursue diplomatic relations with the White House because of "hypocritical" and "empty promises" made by President Donald Trump. The statement by Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon was made on the second anniversary of Trump's historic handshake with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un at a summit in Singapore.

North Korea releases photos showing explosion of liaison office jointly run with South Korea

The office building was erected just two years ago to serve as a breeding ground for diplomacy between North Korea and South Korea.

www.usatoday.com

Yeah, that "knock at the door" ended up doing more harm than good....

 

[Imari]

Cute analogy, meanwhile tens of thousands of ordinary men - and now women because they’re starting to run out of men - are being forced to fight and die in this conflict. On both sides. It needs to end. It’s insane how i seem to be the only one trying to see things from their perspective.

It all ends if Russia calls off the invasion and goes home. That's how you stop people being forced to fight and die.

You seem to be suggesting that Russia should be allowed to keep some or all of the land that they've attempted to annex. I think that's a non-starter, but let's go with it for the sake of argument and work through some of the problems with that.

How much do they get to keep? Which particular parts and why those?
What happens to the Ukrainians who lived there? Where do they go? What about the value of their assets and possessions? What about the value of the land and infrastructure to the government and Ukrainian people?
Given that the world as a whole probably doesn't want to incentivise Russia or any other country from engaging in expansionism in this way in the future, how do you make sure that this isn't setting a precedent encouraging such behaviour?
What happens with regards to reparations or damages? Presumably you're not calling for the entirety of Ukraine to be handed over to Russia and a lot of infrastructure has been damaged, people killed, and economic damage incurred by Russia's "special military operation".
How do you generate sufficient trust in any agreement that Russia might sign, given the nature of how the war started in the first place? How do you stop Russia from agreeing with some treaty, and then simply attacking again next year?

While just letting Russia have the territory might save lives short term, I think it's unclear that it would be positive in the long term. This is the basis of pretty much every war where the participants aren't backed into a corner and fighting for their lives. It will always result in less casualties in the short term just to retreat or concede, and that's often what aggressors like Russia rely on. However, it's entirely possible to end up with greater losses and in a worse position from conceding than if you had just fought it out from an initial position of strength.

Ukraine is doing okay considering who they're up against and they have support from a lot of the international community. If they concede now, they'll almost certainly be in a worse position the next time Russia attacks them. And conceding now does nothing to address that concern of future aggression, Russia's determination in this war means that they're unlikely to give the idea up any time soon.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

It all ends if Russia calls off the invasion and goes home. That's how you stop people being forced to fight and die.

You seem to be suggesting that Russia should be allowed to keep some or all of the land that they've attempted to annex. I think that's a non-starter, but let's go with it for the sake of argument and work through some of the problems with that.

How much do they get to keep? Which particular parts and why those?
What happens to the Ukrainians who lived there? Where do they go? What about the value of their assets and possessions? What about the value of the land and infrastructure to the government and Ukrainian people?
Given that the world as a whole probably doesn't want to incentivise Russia or any other country from engaging in expansionism in this way in the future, how do you make sure that this isn't setting a precedent encouraging such behaviour?
What happens with regards to reparations or damages? Presumably you're not calling for the entirety of Ukraine to be handed over to Russia and a lot of infrastructure has been damaged, people killed, and economic damage incurred by Russia's "special military operation".
How do you generate sufficient trust in any agreement that Russia might sign, given the nature of how the war started in the first place? How do you stop Russia from agreeing with some treaty, and then simply attacking again next year?

While just letting Russia have the territory might save lives short term, I think it's unclear that it would be positive in the long term. This is the basis of pretty much every war where the participants aren't backed into a corner and fighting for their lives. It will always result in less casualties in the short term just to retreat or concede, and that's often what aggressors like Russia rely on. However, it's entirely possible to end up with greater losses and in a worse position from conceding than if you had just fought it out from an initial position of strength.

Ukraine is doing okay considering who they're up against and they have support from a lot of the international community. If they concede now, they'll almost certainly be in a worse position the next time Russia attacks them. And conceding now does nothing to address that concern of future aggression, Russia's determination in this war means that they're unlikely to give the idea up any time soon.

I haven’t said or suggested anything like that. All I’m advocating for is a stop to the war now. I have no idea what would come after that - everyone seems to want to guess, but nobody does really. At the very least though suing for peace now would stop ordinary citizens being sent into something the media have playfully dubbed ‘the meatgrinder’, mostly against their will. I think that’s really important.

 

[MonoTonouS]

Silly kids , In a war economy wars are designed to last as long as possible and maximize profits . Thinking the war can be won is naive and idiotic . It is making many individuals filthy rich .

The ones being played are the idiots supporting either side with $ , it all goes into the hand of the military industrial complex.

The ones most educated in war politics are the blindest and dumbest of them all , perpetuating the myth wars are fought for land / justice / freedom / oil. Nope , Just a blatant wealth transfer from helpless taxpayers into the hands of a select few who profit from each and every shot fired .

 

[Liquid]

All I’m advocating for is a stop to the war now.

How?

 

[Imari]

I haven’t said or suggested anything like that. All I’m advocating for is a stop to the war now. I have no idea what would come after that - everyone seems to want to guess, but nobody does really. At the very least though suing for peace now would stop ordinary citizens being sent into something the media have playfully dubbed ‘the meatgrinder’, mostly against their will. I think that’s really important.

Everyone would like the war to stop, so saying that really isn't saying anything meaningful. If you've got no idea how that could come about and what the after-effects might be, you're just spouting hot air.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

Everyone would like the war to stop, so saying that really isn't saying anything meaningful. If you've got no idea how that could come about and what the after-effects might be, you're just spouting hot air.

Less so than the people who seem to be stating with absolute certainty what they’d be.

 

[eran0004]

Silly kids , In a war economy wars are designed to last as long as possible and maximize profits . Thinking the war can be won is naive and idiotic . It is making many individuals filthy rich .

The ones being played are the idiots supporting either side with $ , it all goes into the hand of the military industrial complex.

The ones most educated in war politics are the blindest and dumbest of them all , perpetuating the myth wars are fought for land / justice / freedom / oil. Nope , Just a blatant wealth transfer from helpless taxpayers into the hands of a select few who profit from each and every shot fired .

According to what economic theory?

 

[Barra333]

A lot of Americans got very rich as a result of the war in Afghanistan.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

A lot of Americans got very rich as a result of the war in Afghanistan.

I wouldn’t say “a lot”, I’d say very few. A lot of Americans (the vast majority) actually became poorer over that period.

 

[Blitz24]

Less so than the people who seem to be stating with absolute certainty what they’d be.

Ah, so this is the first time you've seen Putin in a conflict and have no idea about his nature? It is possible that Putin does have a change of heart and this conflict will cause him to atone for his past sins, but there is absolutely no evidence that anything of the sort has happened. From a realistic standpoint, Putin cannot afford to call off the war because he would be labeled a failure and a loser. Funnily enough, he has the same fear Trump has, except he has a dictatorship that could easily topple due to an economic disaster. Losing or having to beg for peace against a country significantly smaller than Russia might lead to one.

 

[Imari]

Less so than the people who seem to be stating with absolute certainty what they’d be.

Nobody can state the future with absolute certainty, but it's not like the choices are between absolute prediction and complete ignorance.

Sensible people can make estimations of what they think future outcomes might be based on a certain course of action, understanding that these are estimations. They can rationally explain why they think that based on whatever knowledge or facts or history or whatever they might choose to justify their opinion, and then other people can assess that and decide whether they think it's reasonable. And if they don't, then they can explain why not and potentially what they think a more likely outcome from that same course of action might be.

You want none of this - you simply want to state a course of action and ignore anything that might come afterwards. Which is very convenient, because it means there's absolutely no way to judge whether this course of action would be positive or not.

As such, it's significantly MORE useless than people stating absolute certainties - they have stated arguments that can be assessed and debunked if appropriate. You refuse to state any predicted outcomes for your proposed action other than "people don't die if they're not killed" or even any suggestions as to how it might be implemented, you've just picked a single thing and hand-waved absolutely everything else as if none of it matters.

No sensible person would agree with you without a discussion of what comes next, because the ongoing effects are the whole point. Or at least they're the point if you're an adult with an appreciation of the fact that diplomacy does not happen in a vacuum. If stopping the war on Tuesday meant that Russia nukes Ukraine on Wednesday, then sensible and compassionate people would advocate for continuing the war.

Indeed, reasons like this are exactly why NATO and the US haven't simply stepped in and ended it. There are things worse than a conventional war on a limited scale. That sucks for the people who are injured, killed and displaced in that war, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[eran0004]

A lot of Americans got very rich as a result of the war in Afghanistan.

The effect on the economy was negative.

US Economy | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

 

[Clinton Ducks]

Nobody can state the future with absolute certainty, but it's not like the choices are between absolute prediction and complete ignorance.

Sensible people can make estimations of what they think future outcomes might be based on a certain course of action, understanding that these are estimations. They can rationally explain why they think that based on whatever knowledge or facts or history or whatever they might choose to justify their opinion, and then other people can assess that and decide whether they think it's reasonable. And if they don't, then they can explain why not and potentially what they think a more likely outcome from that same course of action might be.

You want none of this - you simply want to state a course of action and ignore anything that might come afterwards. Which is very convenient, because it means there's absolutely no way to judge whether this course of action would be positive or not.

As such, it's significantly MORE useless than people stating absolute certainties - they have stated arguments that can be assessed and debunked if appropriate. You refuse to state any predicted outcomes for your proposed action other than "people don't die if they're not killed" or even any suggestions as to how it might be implemented, you've just picked a single thing and hand-waved absolutely everything else as if none of it matters.

No sensible person would agree with you without a discussion of what comes next, because the ongoing effects are the whole point. Or at least they're the point if you're an adult with an appreciation of the fact that diplomacy does not happen in a vacuum. If stopping the war on Tuesday meant that Russia nukes Ukraine on Wednesday, then sensible and compassionate people would advocate for continuing the war.

Indeed, reasons like this are exactly why NATO and the US haven't simply stepped in and ended it. There are things worse than a conventional war on a limited scale. That sucks for the people who are injured, killed and displaced in that war, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

All of this started when I quoted a BBC article, stating that if Trump got into power again he would likely attempt sue for peace. I stated my opinion that I would find that preferable. I don’t know how that conversation would unfold. Neither do I know on what terms peace would be achieved. I’m woefully unqualified to even hazard a guess. I ain’t pretending to be otherwise. I’m sure if I was qualified I wouldn’t waste my time writing paragraph after condescending paragraph about it in the off topic section of a Gran Turismo forum.

After reading everyone else’s opinions on the matter, I personally would still prefer someone attempt a political solution to the war, whether it’s Donald Trump or anyone else.

 

[MonoTonouS]

The effect on the economy was negative.

US Economy | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

Yet military contractors reaped trillions .

You must be joking if you think war profiteering benefits very one and not just a select few .

" more money please "

 

[Danoff]

Yet military contractors reaped trillions .

You must be joking if you think war profiteering benefits very one and not just a select few .

" more money please "

There are arms dealers in the Ukraine-Russia war that are benefiting. It's something else to suggest that the arms dealers created the war in the first place in order to benefit. It ignores where this war came from and what the climate was like when it was started. It is a conspiracy theory, and quite a poor one because it doesn't hold together under even a little bit of scrutiny.

Putin (not arms dealers) started the war. And before you call Putin an arms dealer, he is not. He started the war not to line his pockets, at least not directly. He started the war as a political maneuver. Your thesis was that every shot fired only makes (someone who started the war) richer. But Putin did not want a lot of shots fired, nor an attempted military coup. Putin wanted a quick win like Crimea, and that was his and the entire world's expectation. He'd like for ZERO shots to have been fired, because the point of this was a political maneuver.

If Putin can be seen as a strong leader, focusing away from internal dynamics onto external issues like Ukraine, if he can be seen as increasing Russia's scope, an overpowering military force, and a shrewd calculating leader, and he can undermine the US in the process by setting up Biden to look weak on Ukraine and ushering back in a weak authoritarian who will greatly damage the US and in the process damage democracy worldwide (this is not a conspiracy theory, he literally was meddling in the US in 2016 to these ends), then Putin will be continued to be revered as a mastermind who's seat at the throne of an expanding nation continues to be assured.

But that's not what happened. And nobody saw that coming. Now Putin is fighting not to increase his power, but to stop the bleeding. He's far worse off than he was when he started. He hasn't been lining his pockets, he self-inflicting near fatal wounds.

The reason peace has not been achieved is because Ukraine wants their nation back, and Putin can't be seen as losing. That's not a foregone recipe for a forever war, it's a recipe for further instability which will at some point be resolved. The US Republicans just took a shot at trying to resolve it in Russia's favor by cutting off US funding, and so far it doesn't feel like the American people have bothered to care about that. I don't love the idea of propping up Ukraine with US tax dollars. Zelenskyy could turn out to be the next Saddam Hussein for all I know. But I do know that it's not good for the world for Ukraine to collapse.

Your thesis is that the people who started this war want it to continue and are benefiting from it. Putin started this war, does not want it to continue, and is being weakened by it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So far the US is sending about ~$116 per capita per year to support Ukraine.

About the Ukrainian Nazi in the Canadian parliament fiasco. I'm not gonna say that it was a good idea to venerate the guy, but I will say this - if I had to pick between the Nazis and the Soviets as a Ukrainian circa 1935, after the you know what happened and before the other stuff happened, I'm pretty sure the choice would have been obvious. I don't know anything else about the guy, he could have been terrible.

 

[TheCracker]

All of this started when I quoted a BBC article, stating that if Trump got into power again he would likely attempt sue for peace. I stated my opinion that I would find that preferable. I don’t know how that conversation would unfold. Neither do I know on what terms peace would be achieved. I’m woefully unqualified to even hazard a guess. I ain’t pretending to be otherwise. I’m sure if I was qualified I wouldn’t waste my time writing paragraph after condescending paragraph about it in the off topic section of a Gran Turismo forum.

After reading everyone else’s opinions on the matter, I personally would still prefer someone attempt a political solution to the war, whether it’s Donald Trump or anyone else.

The only way a political solution can be used to stop the fighting in Ukraine is for Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine. Only then can political reasoning be used. Whilst one country is occupying another sovereign state's territory there's no way other than physically repelling that countries forces for this to play out. Russia needs to ceasefire and withdraw its forces before any political round table talks can happen.

 

[Touring Mars]

Trump's (idiotic) solution to the war in Ukraine is for Ukraine and its allies to stop resisting and to capitulate entirely to Russian aggression.

It's like saying that you can stop someone dying from cancer by telling them to blow their own brains out with a shotgun.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Trump's (idiotic) solution to the war in Ukraine is for Ukraine and its allies to stop resisting and to capitulate entirely to Russian aggression.

It's like saying that you can stop someone dying from cancer by telling them to blow their own brains out with a shotgun.

When comparing Cancer to Putin as a metaphor, I can't believe I'm saying "You can't use that comparison, it's so unfair on Cancer to be compared to that"

 

[Clinton Ducks]

Trump's (idiotic) solution to the war in Ukraine is for Ukraine and its allies to stop resisting and to capitulate entirely to Russian aggression.

It's like saying that you can stop someone dying from cancer by telling them to blow their own brains out with a shotgun.

Now I’m not saying Trump doesn’t sound like a raving moron here, he absolutely does, but in fairness he didn’t say that. He actually said:

“ In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Trump outlined his peace plan for Ukraine War. He said he would tell Zelenskyy to strike a deal with Putin. Then, he would tell Putin to accept the deal with Zelenskyy and warn him Ukraine would get unprecedented support in case he does not accept the deal. Then, the deal would be made.

Trump told Fox, "I know Zelenskyy very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day."

 

[Blitz24]

Now I’m not saying Trump doesn’t sound like a raving moron here, he absolutely does, but in fairness he didn’t say that. He actually said:

“ In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Trump outlined his peace plan for Ukraine War. He said he would tell Zelenskyy to strike a deal with Putin. Then, he would tell Putin to accept the deal with Zelenskyy and warn him Ukraine would get unprecedented support in case he does not accept the deal. Then, the deal would be made.

Trump told Fox, "I know Zelenskyy very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day."

Trump knows Putin very well. Trump probably does not know Zelenskyy at all and would risk making a dumb statement showing he doesn't support Ukraine. Again, I cannot say this is 100% certain but we are talking about Trump.

 

[Barra333]

Trump knows Putin very well. Trump probably does not know Zelenskyy at all and would risk making a dumb statement showing he doesn't support Ukraine. Again, I cannot say this is 100% certain but we are talking about Trump.

At the very least, they have met. (from Zelensky's wiki page)