A Peace Settlement to the Ukraine War

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

warned you over and over again back in 2018 that Hamas was THE threat to Israel and needed to be dealt with in alliance with NATO and the United States.  You wouldn't listen to a word of it.

You were wrong back then and wrong now.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Nobody cares what Europe or the Ukraine wants. Putin and Trump will make a deal that serves Russian and US interests.

No, they wont, because for a deal to stick, it actually has to reference what the people involved want. For example Munich. Didnt work because the Czechoslovaks were not even in the room when the deal was done. Worked for Germany because they ensured the Czechoslovaks were indefensible, worked for Britain and France because they got peace in our time. In the end it only worked for Germany.

Trump can stack up a deal, confident that it wont fall over for 4 years, then when he was out of office he can boast that if he had a third term (maybe he will even get one) then it would never have happened. But is that a deal that works? Not really. Its  sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

11 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

According to the bleep bleep ceeside news this evening, trumpster and the putinista's arte going to divvy up the world between them. Europe has no say and neither the Ukrainians.

 

Seriously flawed conduct from the hooz people, shutting down their 'expert' just as he was saying something that strayed from their line of bullshit.

 

I seriously doubt that ignoring the prcsters is a wise train of thought for any of us.

That is the intent, sure. There was a line from Russia I heard on the morning news, Russia is not going to make any concessions. So you are left with the question, how do you make a deal, when only one side is willing to come out with less than they went in with?

TBH, Ill be surprised if they even get anything across the line. Maybe this is just a Kabuki theatre to justify Ukraine abandonment, although if Trump does go that route, I think even many of his Republicans are going to turn on him.

[seahawk]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, they wont, because for a deal to stick, it actually has to reference what the people involved want. For example Munich. Didnt work because the Czechoslovaks were not even in the room when the deal was done. Worked for Germany because they ensured the Czechoslovaks were indefensible, worked for Britain and France because they got peace in our time. In the end it only worked for Germany.

Trump can stack up a deal, confident that it wont fall over for 4 years, then when he was out of office he can boast that if he had a third term (maybe he will even get one) then it would never have happened. But is that a deal that works? Not really. Its  sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

 

You are missing the point. The French and British were quite fine with Czechoslovakia being thrown under the bus, this only changed once the Panzers rolled towards their border. This time it is no different. The US will be fine with the Ukraine gone. Maybe that will change when the Russian tanks roll into Poland, maybe not and it needs an attack on US soil for that to happen.

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, seahawk said:

You are missing the point. The French and British were quite fine with Czechoslovakia being thrown under the bus, this only changed once the Panzers rolled towards their border. This time it is no different. The US will be fine with the Ukraine gone. Maybe that will change when the Russian tanks roll into Poland, maybe not and it needs an attack on US soil for that to happen.

Not ALL British and French were quite fine with it. There was someone waiting in the wings that was decidedly not ok with it, and ones whose views seemed to have carried the balance of the 20th century in the end.

The US will be fine with the Ukraine gone, and Europe suddenly stops buying American equipment and buying their own. Then suddenly they have no European money to develop the next generation of weapons they need to keep Israel defended and the Chinese at bay. I find it instructive they had to buy an Italian Frigate design off the shelf just to get back in the shipbuilding game. They literally forgot how to build something cheap and cheerful, then predictably set about as making it as expensive as possible.

Europe needs America rather less than the US needs Europe. After all, Europe can go and buy from Japan and worst Korea. Americans cant do that, because politically, particualrly with Trump in office, its indefensible.

Edited February 18 by Stuart Galbraith

[Roman Alymov]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The US will be fine with the Ukraine gone, and Europe suddenly stops buying American equipment and buying their own. Then suddenly they have no European money to develop the next generation of weapons they need to keep Israel defended and the Chinese at bay. I find it instructive they had to buy an Italian Frigate design off the shelf just to get back in the shipbuilding game. They literally forgot how to build something cheap and cheerful, then predictably set about as making it as expensive as possible.

I'm sorry but do you mean the one Europe where majour countries are deep in debt, or some other Europe? Because if you mean the debt-deep Europe, you could safely replace "European money" with "European debt warrants", and US could safely produce own debt warrants without any need of outside ones....

[seahawk]

Then Europe can sit back and watch.

In the end freedom has to be won and defended every day, but society today has lost the people that did this in the past and so we have more and more people who never talked to a WW2 veteran or survivor. We have also more and more who never experienced to Cold War, but on the other hand we have a society in which everybody is free to demand freedom for himself and demand others should do something for him. But defending freedom means sacrifice. Luckily this could only be 12-18 months of your life for military service or a few hundred bucks for military spending, or it could be the lives of many.

[sunday]

At least the US neocons pretend to work for the public good of Samland.

Euro neocons work for the purposes of the US neocons, even after the later have been defeated in the polls. Quite sad. Tragic in the case of the dead Ukrainians.

Edited February 18 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

I'm sorry but do you mean the one Europe where majour countries are deep in debt, or some other Europe? Because if you mean the debt-deep Europe, you could safely replace "European money" with "European debt warrants", and US could safely produce own debt warrants without any need of outside ones....

Debt is seldom a problem if there is someon there to lend. That is how the US won the cold war, whilst your nation tapped out its credit card trying to keep up.

Do you have someone willing to lend your country money? No. Because nobody trusts you, and thats your problem.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 minutes ago, sunday said:

At least the US neocons pretend to work for the public good of Samland.

Euro neocons work for the purposes of the US neocons, even after the later have been defeated in the polls. Quite sad. Tragic in the case of the dead Ukrainians.

Do they? What an absolutely fascinating theory. Tell me, did you develop this theory during the physical act of makng love? Is Samland in the room with us now?

 

 

Edited February 18 by Stuart Galbraith

[Roman Alymov]

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Debt is seldom a problem if there is someon there to lend. 

This "someone there to lend" is China and other countries of "global south" (as after all it is they who are giving out their natural resources and products of their citizens labor in exchange for digits on bank accounts that. as we know, will newer be converted into something one could touch and use in productive way).  Yes it seems like nice strategy for comfortable life, but sideeffect is parasite countries not only deindustrializing, but their people increasingly converting from qualified workers and engeneers to PPT creators and DEI advisors... And one day "Global South" might ask the question why this bunch of white (and not only white) guys are to stay in such comfort on their expence....

34 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That is how the US won the cold war, whilst your nation tapped out its credit card trying to keep up.

Do you have someone willing to lend your country money? No. Because nobody trusts you, and thats your problem.

Many years ago i have said here the West failure to understand the reasons of USSR collapse is next to guaranter of them going the same way. Back then i was laughet at, now ideas like that are pronounced by new US administration officials (who were recentrly elected by millions of US voters, meaning this sort of ideas are sort of wide spread now). Despite of that, you continue to brag about "victory in Cold War" (that newer happened actually, as USSR died of own internal reasons, with symptoms strongly resembling ones we see now in West).

[Mighty_Zuk]

Pressure tactics?

 

[Roman Alymov]

8 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Pressure tactics?

 

The idea that war (and arms supply) are to halt is illusional, at least without outright capitulation of RF right now (something "collective Putin" can't afford for internal political reasons). So business as usual....

[mkenny]

I think the EU is setting itself up for a direct strike on  its forces if they enter Ukraine. Given there is no  longer any fear the US  will step in and protect its poodles what  are they going to do if it happens? 

[seahawk]

The EU will never sent troops. Maybe individual nations.

[Stefan Kotsch]

23 minutes ago, mkenny said:

I think the EU is setting itself up for a direct strike on  its forces if they enter Ukraine.

This is unrealistic. In addition, foreign troops only come to Ukraine in case of peace. If at all troops come

However, Russia will assume that it can attack the Baltic States with impunity if the EU turns out to be anxious.

Edited February 18 by Stefan Kotsch

[Mighty_Zuk]

27 minutes ago, mkenny said:

I think the EU is setting itself up for a direct strike on  its forces if they enter Ukraine. Given there is no  longer any fear the US  will step in and protect its poodles what  are they going to do if it happens? 

In that case Russia breaks a ceasefire it negotiated with the US, so I would say the US would very likely intervene, in turn meaning there's a good reason for Russia to be afraid.

[Ssnake]

Just now, Mighty_Zuk said:

In that case Russia breaks a ceasefire it negotiated with the US, so I would say the US would very likely intervene, 

LOL

[mkenny]

7 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In that case Russia breaks a ceasefire it negotiated with the US, so I would say the US would very likely intervene, in turn meaning there's a good reason for Russia to be afraid.

As afraid as they were of what would happen if the ever dared  to  invade Ukraine? 

Edited February 18 by mkenny

[Mighty_Zuk]

14 minutes ago, mkenny said:

As afraid as they were of what would happen if the ever dared  to  invade Ukraine? 

The US intervened in 2022 by supplying aid that kept the Ukrainian armed forces afloat.

But the aid was not optimal. It was artificially inflated in monetary value but lowered in practical value by neglecting production of key items and drip feeding aid, and usage restrictions. For example front-loaded $50 billion in aid fully implemented in 6 months alone, would do more than $150 billion spread over 6 years.

If Russia breaks the ceasefire, all the US has to do is draw aid plans, front-load them, remove restrictions, and see Russia quickly losing all ground they took since 2014.

And the implications for the US? No negatives. In fact, it'd save a lot of money.

[mkenny]

12 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

.

If Russia breaks the ceasefire, all the US has to do is draw aid plans, front-load them, remove restrictions, and see Russia quickly losing all ground they took since 2014.

Yes I remember the same being said in late 2022. Western media was full of stories of Russia's impending defeat.

[Stefan Kotsch]

4 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Western media was full of stories of Russia's impending defeat.

I see in the glass ball that it will probably come in 1945. Russia wins war. But lose the peace. 

However, it is unclear, what does it mean to say Rusland wins the war against Ukraine. To date, no clear war goals have been formulated. Finland also formally lost the war. But in the end Finland won the peace.

[Mighty_Zuk]

10 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Yes I remember the same being said in late 2022. Western media was full of stories of Russia's impending defeat.

Neither the US nor EU sent any aid in the manner I described. Biden also had the expressed policy of keeping the conflict at a simmer. I'm talking about a realistic option that could potentially be used by the US, and which Russia would certainly have to take into account. 

It's always possible for available options to eventually not be used, but an adversary cannot assume something in hindsight. Nothing happens until it happens.

Edited February 18 by Mighty_Zuk

[ink]

https://www.politico.eu/article/dmitrt-peskov-kremlin-ukraine-sovereign-right-join-eu-not-nato/

Probably the Russians agree with me that the EU doesn't have the capacity to admit Ukraine in any reasonable timeframe so they're giving them a free pass 😏

[mkenny]

The thing that really stands out for me is the way it is always  assumed Russia is weaker/poore/stupider than NATO  and that Ukraine will ultimately prevail 'after just one more push'. Every previous NATO escalation failed to deliver but still the faithful cling to the dream. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

54 minutes ago, mkenny said:

The thing that really stands out for me is the way it is always  assumed Russia is weaker/poore/stupider than NATO  and that Ukraine will ultimately prevail 'after just one more push'. Every previous NATO escalation failed to deliver but still the faithful cling to the dream. 

By all parameters the western aid to Ukraine is underwhelming to say the least, and I argue not at all with any intent to allow it to win. 

Europe made no effort to aid Ukraine for multiple reasons:

1. It had no capacity to. No industries nor available stock of modern equipment.
2. It relied and still relies heavily on American production to fulfill aid programs.
3. In European terms, victory is escalation, and escalation is bad for the economy.
4. By definition, European security policy is meant to be bureaucratic, not logical nor security-oriented.

Why US aid to Ukraine could allow quick collapse of Russia's frontlines and forced withdrawal to the pre-war borders:

1. Trump's security policies are more or less a direct opposite of Biden's, and thus have a very high chance of following the logical path in the majority of cases.
   1. The logical path being pursuing victory and not stalemates.
       
2. Relevant munitions in numbers could allow Ukraine to strike reliably to 500-1,000km range.
   1. Such strikes could force Russia to reduce aviation presence to zero.
   2. Logistical hubs and assets would be further pushed, significantly.
       
3. After acquiring long range munitions, the biggest setbacks are typically restrictions. 
   1. American permission to strike at targets in Russia proper, including MIC, energy exports, and strategic bases/assets, could destroy Russia's ability to generate frontline fighting capability.
   2. At the moment, Russia's rear is largely safe and secure. Ukraine strikes with much less sophisticated, locally produced weapons, with lower kinetic effect and probability of impact.

 

Your argument that the US intervened with the intent to drive Ukraine to victory, is therefore false.