A Peace Settlement to the Ukraine War

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, ink said:

Perhaps you're right in lawyerly terms - I'm not enough of an expert to comment really and anything I said would be an educated guess at best.

However, I think that beyond the legal sense, there appears to be a big difference between a new or prospective member claiming land 'beyond the borders of the Alliance', so to speak, and one that has foreign troops (or even 'rebel forces') on it's territory at the moment of its accession.

But so did West Germany.

 

 

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Even if the constitution was just a facade under the communists. And even today, the Constitution of Russia is changed at will, whenever it is convenient. So facade.

I would be interested to hear what German constitutional lawyers have to say about the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia without a UN resolution providing legal justification.

[ink]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But so did West Germany.

 

 

Touché, sir!

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Boy, do you even know Article 5? Russia would have to attack Ukraine again. Ukraine itself would ultimately have ruled out a military solution. So if Russia attacks again, Article 5 will come into force.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ...

 

But not, if the Ukraine tries to take back territory lost. And that is the point.

[glenn239]

14 hours ago, ink said:

Huh? Sorry Glenn, not sure what you mean here.

I just meant that Erdogan probably extracted god only knows what kind of concessions from the US over Finland and Sweden. So imagine what he can try to get in the run-up to Ukraine's membership.

 If Turkey were to agree to extend its NATO alliance obligation to Ukraine, that means that Turkey may have to go to war with Russia because of what NATO is, an alliance.  It's not like Finland or Sweden where the risks of real conflict were practically nil, in Ukraine the chances of a direct clash are high.  What interest does Turkey have in a war with Russia?  What possible trinkets could NATO offer Turkey to compensate for the real risks involved?

[ink]

1 minute ago, glenn239 said:

 If Turkey were to agree to extend its NATO alliance obligation to Ukraine, that means that Turkey may have to go to war with Russia because of what NATO is, an alliance.  It's not like Finland or Sweden where the risks of real conflict were practically nil, in Ukraine the chances of a direct clash are high.  What interest does Turkey have in a war with Russia?  What possible trinkets could NATO offer Turkey to compensate for the real risks involved?

Honest answer: Turkey probably wouldn't respond to an Article 5 call if things got real anyway. Countries can, I believe, decide on their type of response so Erdogan would probably send Putin a strongly worded email.

For Turkey, the main benefit would be wheeling and dealing, which they have become very good at since the military stopped overthrowing their government every couple of years.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Boy, do you even know Article 5? Russia would have to attack Ukraine again. Ukraine itself would ultimately have ruled out a military solution. So if Russia attacks again, Article 5 will come into force.

The notion that Ukraine would use its membership in NATO as a means to rule out the use of force to eject Russia from its territory is a unique perspective.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

32 minutes ago, seahawk said:

But not, if the Ukraine tries to take back territory lost. And that is the point.

Well, its not really, because Ukraine is not going to start a war with Russia, knowing it wont be supported. Its about as likely as saying 'well West Germany thinks it ought to have Wittenberge back, so we probably shouldnt let them join NATO.' This was basic stuff, figured out long ago. Why its suddenly a problem for Ukraine when it wasnt for Germans, or anyone else for that matter, Im damned if I can figure out.

[glenn239]

23 minutes ago, ink said:

Honest answer: Turkey probably wouldn't respond to an Article 5 call if things got real anyway. 

Then why blur the line with dangerous liaisons?   What trinket for Erdogan is worth the risk of Russia arming the Armenians to the teeth for a war of liberation?

Edited September 25 by glenn239

[glenn239]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, its not really, because Ukraine is not going to start a war with Russia, knowing it wont be supported.

The Ukrainians are too stupid after joining NATO to use their techniques of manipulation and bribery to secure support in the West amongst the globalist and neocon classes, and their massive media support structure?   These hardline Western organizations in the West that have been urgently pressing to give that support, they would not still be chomping at the bit to use NATO to give that support?   The Ukrainians and neocons are too stupid to understand that a couple incidents or false flags where civilians are killed, and NATO will go to war with Russia?   Zelensky, having seen killed 300,000 to 400,000 Ukrainians killed already in an avoidable war, having ordered untrained troops to basically stand and die by the tens of thousands already, he would be suddenly squeamish at doing whatever was necessary to get NATO over the final hurdle?  This is what you are saying?  This is what you would have us believe?

 

 

Edited September 25 by glenn239

[ink]

7 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Then why blur the line with dangerous liaisons?   What trinket for Erdogan is worth the risk of Russia arming the Armenians to the teeth for a war of liberation?

I don't think Erdogan thinks twice about that possibility. Their (business) relationship to the Russians is too close. Rossatom is going to be running their first nuclear power plant for the next couple of decades, for example.

For Turkey, there's no risk, just potential rewards.

[ink]

24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why its suddenly a problem for Ukraine when it wasnt for Germans, or anyone else for that matter, Im damned if I can figure out.

Maybe, potentially, due to the different nature of the border disputes in question, as I suggested a couple of posts back.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont see it. I dont remember anything about the cold war, particularly the early days, as cute asn stable as its currently claimed. There was too many shootdowns for one thing.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Ukrainians are too stupid after joining NATO to use their techniques of manipulation and bribery to secure support in the West amongst the globalist and neocon classes, and their massive media support structure?   These hardline Western organizations in the West that have been urgently pressing to give that support, they would not still be chomping at the bit to use NATO to give that support?   The Ukrainians and neocons are too stupid to understand that a couple incidents or false flags where civilians are killed, and NATO will go to war with Russia?   Zelensky, having seen killed 300,000 to 400,000 Ukrainians killed already in an avoidable war, having ordered untrained troops to basically stand and die by the tens of thousands already, he would be suddenly squeamish at doing whatever was necessary to get NATO over the final hurdle?  This is what you are saying?  This is what you would have us believe?

 

 

Too stupid to start a war that would result in their abandonment after a decade long request for western recognition and support you mean? And no they arent. Its a bloody stupid analysis. But then this is the guy that thinks enough siebel ferries would win ww2, so why bother to point that out to you.

[sunday]

22 minutes ago, ink said:

Rossatom is going to be running their first nuclear power plant for the next couple of decades, for example.

A good candidate for another Nord Stream.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Then why blur the line with dangerous liaisons?   What trinket for Erdogan is worth the risk of Russia arming the Armenians to the teeth for a war of liberation?

The Armenians seem rather occupied and quite disillusioned with Moscow.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont see it. I dont remember anything about the cold war, particularly the early days, as cute asn stable as its currently claimed. There was too many shootdowns for one thing.

Ok, that's understandable, but at least consider the example of Georgia, who's NATO membership was put on a pretty permanent looking back burner back in 2008.

[Stuart Galbraith]

But thats arguably a political choice, not a territorial one. The reason why the Bush white house stalled that is they suddenly realised they might actually have to go to the other side of the baltic to defend them, and gibbed. The same is true of Ukraine, which had long standing ambitions to join NATO before 2014, had all its territory, and we still gibbed at it.

Truth be told, this isnt about western encroachment. Its about western appeasement, and we are still doing it, even though the lessons of what it leads to are now very clear to us.

 

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, its not really, because Ukraine is not going to start a war with Russia, knowing it wont be supported. Its about as likely as saying 'well West Germany thinks it ought to have Wittenberge back, so we probably shouldnt let them join NATO.' This was basic stuff, figured out long ago. Why its suddenly a problem for Ukraine when it wasnt for Germans, or anyone else for that matter, Im damned if I can figure out.

Because a not minor part of the territory that the Ukraine considers Ukrainian is occupied by a hostile force. That was not true for Western Germany in 1955.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The same is true of Ukraine, which had long standing ambitions to join NATO before 2014, had all its territory, and we still gibbed at it.

It did?

I've got to say, I don't remember that.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ukraine joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in 1994 and the NATO-Ukraine Commission in 1997, then agreed the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan in 2002 and entered into NATO's Intensified Dialogue program in 2005. In 2010, during the premiership of Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status, while continuing its co-operation with NATO.^[3

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

Funny it changed under Yanukovich. It's almost like he was a pro Russian stooge or something...

[urbanoid]

2 hours ago, ink said:

It did?

I've got to say, I don't remember that.

They got blocked from pursuing membership at the same time as Georgia, during the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit, by France and Germany.

[ink]

8 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

They got blocked from pursuing membership at the same time as Georgia, during the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit, by France and Germany.

That's a very unusual reading of what happened at Bucharest and afterwards, in my opinion.

However, either way, the best thing that can be said about Ukraine's pre-2014 (or even pre-2022) NATO aspirations is that some political figures wanted to join NATO. I don't think it would be fair to say "Ukraine wanted to join NATO" without some sort of caveat explaining that this wasn't a 'popular' idea.