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 Wednesday at 10:21 AM 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.)

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

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.

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.)

There were no NATO troops (except during annual Rapid Trident exercise which has organized since 2013, when about 6000 troops from NATO and African countries trained with Ukraine's troops for a week) before current invasion and even possibility for NATO troops were close to zero and Ukraine joining NATO was even more unlikely. Invasion itself made idea of NATO troops in Ukraine a possibility that could actually happen. So I don't see that would prevent subsequent ones as blocking NATO troops was not one of the goals that Russia tries to achieve with the invasion.

Invasion made it possible that Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Support for NATO in Finland was in 2018 less than 23%, 2021 it was 26%, in 2022 after Russia started their invasion it jumped to over 70%. In January 2022 less than 40% of members of Finnish parliament supported joining NATO, in March support had jumped to over 90%. Finnish Government Defence Report from 2021 estimated that NATO support in Finland could reach 50% in 2040 if Russia continues its power politics and Russian parliament members continue to threated Finland.

So if Russia didn't want NATO to expand, they choose option that caused opposite effect, quite predictably

Russia warned against NATO deploying troops in Ukraine in 2021 and said that is their red line, but at that time Russia itself was already moving its troops to Ukraine's border for "military exercise" which ended as invasion to Ukraine in 2022.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56616778

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/2/russia-warns-nato-against-troop-deployment-to-ukraine

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-says-nato-troops-in-ukraine-would-be-a-red-line-for-moscow

Although Ukraine wanted NATO to hasten its membership because it feared that Russia may invade 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/06/ukraine-pressures-nato-for-membership-as-russia-amasses-troops-at-border

Russia was also against NATO countries supplying Ukraine

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/22/russia-accuses-west-of-fuelling-hysteria-over-ukraine-tensions

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/30/russia-will-act-if-nato-countries-cross-ukraine-red-lines-putin-says

Although Russia did say that they brough troops to Ukraine borders as response against non specified NATO threats 

https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/12/g7-calls-on-russia-to-cease-provocations-on-ukraine-border

There was also speculation that everything has been just to increase gas prices in Europe and get approval for Nord Stream 2

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-shmyhal-nato-russia/

 

[Malcador]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

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 

Doesn't really seem like the lesser, Russia isn't going to occupy the whole country, unless they're keen on breaking themselves. Sort of funny how it's peace at any cost, just to give Trump a win.  As for US economic interests being security guarantees, ehh, US isn't all that reliable just on that

And it's a bit more than SM posturing when you give documents to people and demand they sign it immediately, and other official actions

Text of agreement. I am curious of corruption with this fund, but on the US side.

https://archive.ph/Zs2Zr

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:31 PM by Malcador

[kanisatha]

15 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

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

Not saying a literal return to the past. It's about returning to a certain way of doing things, where only a small group of the most powerful states matter, the other states don't matter, and the powerful states are the only ones with a say on how things work in the world and whose interests get taken into account. Furthermore, the powerful states each maintains deference towards the behavior of the others in return for the same.

In Trump's view, only the US, China, and Russia (and possibly India) matter. And in return for the US not criticizing Russia for its actions in Ukraine, and potentially not criticizing China for actions in Taiwan, he expects they will return the favor when he takes certain actions in the future against Mexico (cartels), Panama (canal), and Greenland.

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, Elerond said:

So if Russia didn't want NATO to expand, they choose option that caused opposite effect, quite predictably

What actually happens and what people expect to happen aren't necessarily the same, so what happens is largely irrelevant when explaining motivations. Hitler didn't invade Poland- or the SU- expecting to be shooting himself in the ruins of Berlin a few years later, though it was a predictable result of trying to fight most of the rest of the world simultaneously. Bush didn't invade Iraq expecting to be bogged down in an insurgency 5 years later, but he should have. Bob didn't bet the mortgage money expecting his sure thing to lose. People make mistakes, even predictable ones.

There's no reason to believe that stopping Ukraine joining NATO was not the reason for Putin invading just because it resulted in other countries joining and he didn't get the results he wanted. It's the one thing they've been 100% consistent on.

In any case while Sweden and Finland loved talking about their 'neutrality', they weren't neutral to most practical effects.

Quote

Support for NATO in Finland was in 2018 less than 23%..

We kind of had this discussion a few months ago. 

The polls were even lower for Ukraine, yet every single leader except Yanukovich and Kravchuk supported NATO membership.

[Malcador]

Russia in NATO would be funny, Russians having to switch their kit to STANAG

[ShadySands]

Just a friendly reminder to stretch before engaging in any mental gymnastics. Don't want to pull a hammy.

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

The polls were even lower for Ukraine, yet every single leader except Yanukovich and Kravchuk supported NATO membership.

I am not sure that Kravchuk didn't support NATO membership considering that he visited NATO headquarters, lead Ukraine's foreign policy to formalized Ukraine's relationship with NATO and helped to create framework agreement with NATO to support Central and Eastern European countries to join NATO.

Kuchma started to propose special partnership with NATO after Russian Federal Council officially endorsed claim that Sevastopol is part of Russia. Which eventually lead him to declare that Ukraine wants to join NATO in 2002, although NATO countries seemed to though that such would be too risky because it would upset Russia, opinion that they still hold. 

Yushchenko then tried his best to get NATO and EU to open their doors for Ukraine, but his efforts were blocked by opposition parties that called referendum (polls said that about 50% oppose idea of joining NATO) about continuing pursuing joining in NATO, which lead to some leading Ukraine politician to state that Ukraine will not join NATO as long as public opposes it. W. Bush and Obama promised to support Ukraine's membership in NATO, but in 2008 NATO decided that it will not offer membership for Ukraine or Georgia yet. Bit later NATO told that Ukraine and Georgia would need to make reforms as the leaving present by W. Bush.

Yanukovych campaigned with idea that Ukraine's relationship with NATO is sufficient and there is no urgency to join. Later he said that Ukraine's relationship with NATO is partnership and Ukraine can't live without that partnership. Then he removed "integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership" from Ukraine's national security strategy and law that didn't allow Ukraine to join any military bloc but allowed co-operation with them. But in same moth Ukraine approved plan to implement national annual program of cooperation with NATO, which lead Ukraine to continue joint exercises with NATO during Yanukovych presidency.

Interim government and then president Poroshenko stated that they don't intent to make Ukraine a member of NATO.  In August 2014 after reports that Russian military is operating in Ukraine, Prime minister Yatsenyuk announced he will ask Ukraine parliament to put Ukraine to path towards NATO membership and repeal non-block law. After that Ukraine has made joining NATO one of its priorities, which was answered by President of European Commission that it will take at least 20 years. But NATO did add Ukraine in 2018 in list of aspiring members.

Zelenskyy signed Ukraine to NATO's enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program, which does not have effects on decisions about membership according to NATO's official statement. In 2021 when Russia started to bring troops and have military exercises on Ukraine's borders NATO members promised military support and started to grandstand about possibility give Ukraine MAP status in NATO. Then after half year of building troops Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO members didn't gave military support, but at least they gave equipment and money and sanctioned Russia somewhat.

Popular support for NATO in Ukraine is about 80%, which is up from polls in 2014-2019, when support was about 50%, but Ukraine is probably not any closer to NATO membership than it has ever been.

So in sort none of Ukraine's presidents have been against NATO, but Yushchenko was clearly NATO fan others seem to have seen it as way to protect Ukraine from Russia.

[Zoraptor]

Eh, the problem with saying Kravchuk supported membership is the historical context- if you say he supported it then you have to say the same about Yeltsin, and Putin too.

The only concrete step Kravchuk took was joining PFP, which Russia did as well. And, PFP was only formalised as a pathway to join NATO in Dec94, after Kravchuk was voted out.

[Elerond]

Yeltsin did say that he wants Russia to join NATO.

Putin is more complex, but he has taken quite adversary stance towards from start of his rule.

[Malcador]

 

Jesus Christ.

[Gorgon]

interesting.

 

[Maedhros]

Trump being congratulated by Orban afterwards, of course.

[HoonDing]

The art of the deal.

[Zoraptor]

Don't know what Macron thought he was doing getting Trump to invite Zelensky to the WH. If you were going to lobby for the meeting you had to make sure it wasn't going to be bilateral at least, so you could try to smooth things over at the first wrinkle. A public bust up was always going to be a very, very real possibility. Zelensky isn't Macron and he isn't Starmer- his normal approach could not be better calculated to annoy someone like Trump and he very publicly said he would keep his normal approach (eg be "very direct"). It's all well and good being true to yourself or whatever platitudes people may trot out; but you should also do what is best for your country when you're its leader* and that isn't getting into a spat with its biggest supporter over the previous three years.  

*And that's whether or not it was a 'planned' ambush. Indeed, it's quite probably worse for Zelensky if it was planned since if it was he ended up giving them exactly what they wanted.