Ukraine Conflict - In the grim darkness of the near future, there is only war!

[kanisatha]

9 hours ago, HoonDing said:

"rules based order"

To be fair, 'rules-based order' (liberal internationalist) is the thing of Biden and the old guard of both parties. For Trump, it is, and has always been, about returning us and the world to a form of the pre-WW1 'power-based order' (realist).

[Zoraptor]

The more cynical might regard that as more of a concept of an agreement than an actual one.

Every hard choice kicked down the road so both sides could claim a win.

[uuuhhii]

want to bring world back to pre ww2 would be nothing but wishful thinking

colony and puppet take a lot more to maintain now it is simply not profitable

[bugarup]

So still a protection racket sort of a deal. The fall of USA would be so funny in fiction. 

[Lexx]

Maybe Ukraine thinks they just have to wait out Trump. At the end of the day, the GOP doesn't honor deals, so why should Ukraine do it? For now they can just say and do whatever, and later.. who knows.

[BruceVC]

12 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://archive.ph/968bf

So deal signed, no security guarantees though.  Seems kind of meh, guess will have to wait for the text, but doesn't seem like a huge win for Trump

Its really a complete change from all the " anti-Ukraine " rhetoric from last week but Trump was doing what he always does. He has perfected the art of creating SM drama and making controversial  public comments in order to get the deal he wants. He did this Canada and Panama and now Ukraine and he will keep doing it because most governments and SM commentators  fall for it every time 

He doesnt even have to worry about long periods of  negotiating terms because  so much media attention is created its easy for him to get most of what he wants

I dont like this strategy but its clearly effective

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c337461n3xlo

"Without confirming that an agreement had been reached, Trump said on Tuesday that in return for the deal Ukraine would get "the right to fight on".

"They're very brave," he told reporters, but "without the United States and its money and its military equipment, this war would have been over in a very short period of time".

Asked whether supplies of US equipment and ammunition to Ukraine would continue, he said: "Maybe until we have a deal with Russia... We need to have a deal, otherwise it's going to continue."

 

 

 

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Its really a complete change from all the " anti-Ukraine " rhetoric from last week but Trump was doing what he always does. He has perfected the art of creating SM drama and making controversial  public comments in order to get the deal he wants. He did this Canada and Panama and now Ukraine and he will keep doing it because most governments and SM commentators  fall for it every time 

He doesnt even have to worry about long periods of  negotiating terms because  so much media attention is created its easy for him to get most of what he wants

I dont like this strategy but its clearly effective

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c337461n3xlo

"Without confirming that an agreement had been reached, Trump said on Tuesday that in return for the deal Ukraine would get "the right to fight on".

"They're very brave," he told reporters, but "without the United States and its money and its military equipment, this war would have been over in a very short period of time".

Asked whether supplies of US equipment and ammunition to Ukraine would continue, he said: "Maybe until we have a deal with Russia... We need to have a deal, otherwise it's going to continue."

 

 

 

That seems to be lie, as they don't promise Ukraine anything including ammunition and equipment which have been in hold and there is no preparation to continue to supply them and are still looking to do deal with Russia.

Even situation with star link is still under question

Also they are they clearly aren't sure if Ukraine will sign the deal in Friday considering how they leaked information that Ukraine already signed it in order to create confusion.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Elerond said:

That seems to be lie, as they don't promise Ukraine anything including ammunition and equipment which have been in hold and there is no preparation to continue to supply them and are still looking to do deal with Russia.

Even situation with star link is still under question

Also they are they clearly aren't sure if Ukraine will sign the deal in Friday considering how they leaked information that Ukraine already signed it in order to create confusion.

But what else would you expect, the US and the West was never going to deploy troops directly into the conflict?

And if the US now has vested economic interests in Ukraine its more likely Ukraine will maintain its sovereignty once the war ends. Its unlikely Russia will invade Ukraine again if the US has these massive economic investments 

The war has to end, I assume  we all agree on that. And I think  how it will end is Ukraine will agree to not join NATO and they will accept they have lost the illegally annexed areas like  Donbas and Crimea 

I think this minerals agreement is the lesser of 2 evils and it is better for most Ukrainians than living under Russian occupation or Russian economic control 

[Elerond]

5 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But what else would you expect, the US and the West was never going to deploy troops directly into the conflict?

And if the US now has vested economic interests in Ukraine its more likely Ukraine will maintain its sovereignty once the war ends. Its unlikely Russia will invade Ukraine again if the US has these massive economic investments 

The war has to end, I assume  we all agree on that. And I think  how it will end is Ukraine will agree to not join NATO and they will accept they have lost the illegally annexed areas like  Donbas and Crimea 

I think this minerals agreement is the lesser of 2 evils and it is better for most Ukrainians than living under Russian occupation or Russian economic control 

Not sell Ukraine to Russia? Not blackmail Ukraine? Not put Ukraine greater sanctions than German Empire got after WWI? 

US already had vested economic interest to Ukraine. Considering that over half of the minerals US wants are in areas controlled by Russia, they would need to send their troops to get they want.

They aren't illegally annexed if they became legally part of Russia, then annexation is internationally accepted.

Agreement is poor and unjust which will lead destabilization and longer conflict, even if conflict changes its form.

Also NATO seems to be breaking over this decision, considering that NATO countries look new forms of alliances because they can't trust that NATO works. This outcome seems to be certain regardless of what else happens. EU countries are looking to increase their nuclear arsenal, they are looking new military alliance that will coordinate European defense, which will take role of main coordinating body from NATO. EU looks if they can get closer trade alliance with China, India and South America, because they can't trust US.

Also why Russia would not invade Ukraine again, especially after Ukraine is demilitarized and there will not be any troops that are would prevent Russia from taking the Ukraine when they want? Or do you think that Russia will somehow drop two of their core demands (demilitarization of Ukraine and no NATO troops in Ukraine)?

[Elerond]

34 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Not sell Ukraine to Russia? Not blackmail Ukraine? Not put Ukraine greater sanctions than German Empire got after WWI? 

US already had vested economic interest to Ukraine. Considering that over half of the minerals US wants are in areas controlled by Russia, they would need to send their troops to get they want.

They aren't illegally annexed if they became legally part of Russia, then annexation is internationally accepted.

Agreement is poor and unjust which will lead destabilization and longer conflict, even if conflict changes its form.

Also NATO seems to be breaking over this decision, considering that NATO countries look new forms of alliances because they can't trust that NATO works. This outcome seems to be certain regardless of what else happens. EU countries are looking to increase their nuclear arsenal, they are looking new military alliance that will coordinate European defense, which will take role of main coordinating body from NATO. EU looks if they can get closer trade alliance with China, India and South America, because they can't trust US. 

Also why Russia would not invade Ukraine again, especially after Ukraine is demilitarized and there will not be any troops that are would prevent Russia from taking the Ukraine when they want? Or do you think that Russia will somehow drop two of their core demands (demilitarization of Ukraine and no NATO troops in Ukraine)?
 

EDIT: Sweden can now feel warm embrace of US as ally and trade partner, as US is seeking to block Sweden from selling Gripens to Columbia as they want that Columbia buys F-16 from USA instead. https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/5194032/029-colombia-estados-unidos-vetara-venta-componentes-gripen-colombia  . Saab clearly made big mistake when they decided to buy jet engines from USA instead of making their own or buying them from France/UK, now US can block all their sales of Gripens.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elerond

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

That seems to be lie, as they don't promise Ukraine anything including ammunition and equipment which have been in hold and there is no preparation to continue to supply them and are still looking to do deal with Russia.

It doesn't have to be part of the agreement for that to happen. Trump can send- or not- stuff without it being formally mandated- and it doesn't seem like much is formally mandated, certainly not with any great detail.

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Also why Russia would not invade Ukraine again..?

The obvious answer is that no NATO and no troops removes the reason for the invasion; so there won't be subsequent ones. 

It's clearly not something Putin was actually keen on given it took him 23 (or 15, though that was clearly not anywhere approaching full scale) years to invade in the first place.

(That's one of the issues with assigning blanket motivations as if people are cartoon villains: a cartoon villain Putler bent on expansion for the sake of it would have invaded Ukraine far earlier. A cartoon villain probably would have invaded the Baltics before they joined NATO too, not stopped short of Tblisi in 2008 and a bunch of other things. There wouldn't be a Belarus, wouldn't be a Kazakhstan, wouldn't be an Armenia and as a consequence almost certainly wouldn't be an Azerbaijan.

One of the great ironies is how Clinton seemed like a good President at the time but so many of his decisions turned out to be garbage in retrospect, including expanding NATO without any accounting for Russia- something he was repeatedly warned about by people like George Kennan. If you want(ed) Ukraine in NATO, you should (have) invite(d) Russia. Couldn't have that though, then Europe might realise they didn't need the US.)