A Peace Settlement to the Ukraine War

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Do you understand that first amd second Presidents of Ukraine were very much Nomenklatura, and that Poroshenko and Zelensky are "direct children" of "nomenklatura" (members of Soviet rulling elite, in this cases "second tier" of it), while for example Putin and Lukashenko are both from Soviet "underclass"?  Another example, current President of AZ Aliev is the son of not just "Nomenklatura" but very top one, "tier zero" (his father was both the cairman of Soviet AZ Communist party and head of local KGB), educated in most elite univercity of USSR (usually reserved for "nomenklatura" children, except few "underclass" who got there almost by miracle). All Central Asia "independent states" were founded by local Nomenklatura (for example, Nazarbayev was former Communist boss of Soviet Kazakhstan). 

Edited February 19 by Mighty_Zuk

[Yama]

2 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Current "Finns" (people living inside of current Finlands borders) are not just Estonian colonists, but consist of many historical tribes like Tavastians, Savonians, the Sami People, Karelians, etc.

That said, using Romans logic lake Lagoda area should belong finns also as it is traditional "Karelian" land and Finns should just make Karelian tribe whole again... also Ingrians. We cannot forget those aswell and should be incorporate to "greater Finland" also, 

"Tavastians" were Estonian colonists, Karelians were their 'Eastern cousins', Savonians were mixture of the aforementioned  and there were also Swedish medieval colonists in South Finland, and of course, Saami. 

[Yama]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

Actually, out of four tribes that founded what later became Russia, two were Finno-Ugric/Baltic, so one could safely consider Russia as "real Estonia" across 11 timezones, while Estonia to be just bunch of people whose prospects were ruined by centuries of German landlords domination.  Sort of Gaza strip on Baltics, unlucky part of big Arab land separated from mainland by bunch of foreigners from across the sea....

'Moscow' is a Finnic name, y'know. Seems to me we would have all the right to have it back!

[MiGG0]

14 minutes ago, Yama said:

"Tavastians" were Estonian colonists, Karelians were their 'Eastern cousins', Savonians were mixture of the aforementioned  and there were also Swedish medieval colonists in South Finland, and of course, Saami. 

Naah, Tavastians, Savonians, Karelians were here pretty much same time as Estonians were S of gulf (Stone age). Their proto tribe might has been same (some went S some N while travelling west) but both areas were populated roughtly same time. Your other point still is valid if using Romans logic. Large parts of Russia belongs to us as were where there before and that is our "homeland"  

[alejandro_]

14 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

I'm sorry but even then-US Ambassador to Russia (CIA Director later) was not in agreement with you

In his memoir The Back Channel, published in 2019, Burns confirmed that, in 1990, Secretary of State James Baker had indeed assured Mikhail Gorbachev that there would be no expansion of the NATO alliance or forces “one inch to the east” of the borders of a reunified Germany. Burns wrote that, even though the pledge was never formalized and was made before the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russians took Baker at his word and felt betrayed by NATO enlargement in the years that followed.

This is from the former British ambassador in the Soviet Union and Russia. Interestingly enough Gorbachev claimed that NATO expansion was not mentioned in the talks. It could be a case of him overlooking the discussion. Also, I don't think he had access to archives because Yeltsin literally kicked him out of the Kremlin in early 1992.

A Broken ( Verbal) Promise

James Baker, the impressive US Secretary of State, told Gorbachev in early February  1990 that the borders of NATO would not move further eastwards than united Germany. He offered a guarantee on this in the context of the 2+4 talks, on the assumption that Gorbachev would agree that NATO would continue to exist and US forces would be stationed in Europe under NATO. Prime Minister John Major made a similar remark to Gorbachev's Minister of Defence. The Russians never asked for these points in writing. They regarded the subsequent extension of NATO to bring in Poland and other Warsaw Pact states, and the three Baltic States when they left the Soviet Union, as a serious breach of faith. 

The remarks of Baker and Major were not binding, but the Russian resentment at NATO's enlargement is understandable. I confess that I'm glad it happened because membership of NATO, with the guarantee that an attack on any ally will be treated as an attack on all allies, makes life much more comfortable for the new NATO members in the face of Putin's machinations now. 

Living the Cold War: Memoirs of a British Diplomat, de Christopher Mallaby, Amberley Publishing (2017 - Hardcover) (page 233)

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

This is from the former British ambassador in the Soviet Union and Russia. Interestingly enough Gorbachev claimed that NATO expansion was not mentioned in the talks. It could be a case of him overlooking the discussion. Also, I don't think he had access to archives because Yeltsin literally kicked him out of the Kremlin in early 1992.

A Broken ( Verbal) Promise

James Baker, the impressive US Secretary of State, told Gorbachev in early February  1990 that the borders of NATO would not move further eastwards than united Germany. He offered a guarantee on this in the context of the 2+4 talks, on the assumption that Gorbachev would agree that NATO would continue to exist and US forces would be stationed in Europe under NATO. Prime Minister John Major made a similar remark to Gorbachev's Minister of Defence. The Russians never asked for these points in writing. They regarded the subsequent extension of NATO to bring in Poland and other Warsaw Pact states, and the three Baltic States when they left the Soviet Union, as a serious breach of faith. 

The remarks of Baker and Major were not binding, but the Russian resentment at NATO's enlargement is understandable. I confess that I'm glad it happened because membership of NATO, with the guarantee that an attack on any ally will be treated as an attack on all allies, makes life much more comfortable for the new NATO members in the face of Putin's machinations now. 

Living the Cold War: Memoirs of a British Diplomat, de Christopher Mallaby, Amberley Publishing (2017 - Hardcover) (page 233)

Well, certainly thats one version. Here is another one from Gorbachev in 2014, something I remember he repeated not long before he passed away. For me this is the authoritative version, and denies that he had been goodwinked. irritated yes, but nobody lied to anyone.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March, NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.

 

As for the Baltic states, Ive a book upstairs I believe is called 'NATO Moves East' that makes it very clear that Russia was consulted at every point on the expansion of NATO, and did not issue objections at any point. Its curious that Russia only discovered objections to it retroactively after it had already happened, presumably because they were offended that they were not asked to join also.  Something im eternally grateful did not happen.

[Stefan Kotsch]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Do you understand that first amd second Presidents of Ukraine

I spoke of Russia. Russia's Nomenklatura led by Putin have attacked Ukraine and see it as property of Russia. It was not the Ukraine.

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

... word you do not fully understand ...

You don't have the monopoly at understanding.

[Yama]

1 hour ago, MiGG0 said:

Naah, Tavastians, Savonians, Karelians were here pretty much same time as Estonians were S of gulf (Stone age). Their proto tribe might has been same (some went S some N while travelling west) but both areas were populated roughtly same time. Your other point still is valid if using Romans logic. Large parts of Russia belongs to us as were where there before and that is our "homeland"  

Current understanding is that Balto-Finns arrived to modern Finland from two directions during first millenium AD, to East (from Karelia) and South across the Gulf of Finland. Ideas that Uralic people lived in Finland since Stone age are considered obsolete.

Arrival of the Finns was probably gradual, not a sudden 'invasion', and predecessor peoples (likely Indo-Europeans on Southwestern coast, and Saami in the interior - and possibly some others, whom we know little about) were absorbed more or less peacefully.

Roman ideas that Russia was not a 'colonial empire' is obviously incorrect, it was every bit just as much as England, Spain or France. They just weren't overseas colonial empire (for the most part). And over most of Russia, they are similarly recent arrivals as say, Americans in USA.

 

[MiGG0]

11 minutes ago, Yama said:

Current understanding is that Balto-Finns arrived to modern Finland from two directions during first millenium AD, to East (from Karelia) and South across the Gulf of Finland. Ideas that Uralic people lived in Finland since Stone age are considered obsolete.

Arrival of the Finns was probably gradual, not a sudden 'invasion', and predecessor peoples (likely Indo-Europeans on Southwestern coast, and Saami in the interior - and possibly some others, whom we know little about) were absorbed more or less peacefully.

Roman ideas that Russia was not a 'colonial empire' is obviously incorrect, it was every bit just as much as England, Spain or France. They just weren't overseas colonial empire (for the most part). And over most of Russia, they are similarly recent arrivals as say, Americans in USA.

 

There are traces of different cultures starting from 9000BC in Finland, so yes it was not sudden. But then again it was not simple as "estonians" moved here either (it happened similar time frame and small hunter-gatherer tribes were moving N to new lands as glacier was retreating). First cultures probably moved in here from E becasue it just easier than over the gulf of Finland that was much larger then than nowdays (following coast). After that there have been other cultures moving here (and mixing to population already in here) from different directions including from W.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Some words of truth from Boris Johnson and Jessica Berlin.

Much like the Gaza plan, Trump is trying to scare Europeans into action. Making false claims is just part of the strategy.

When Trump unveiled the Gaza plan, Netanyahu responded by endorsing it. But in Europe, it only made politicians recoil and criticize Trump instead of offering solutions.

Boris also talks about Russia's frozen assets. Them remaining frozen instead of financing a war machine to tackle Russia is exactly why Europe is powerless. 

On the most basic level, Trump's desire to resolve the conflict in the short term, is admirable. But people will have different opinions on "how". 

An uninvolved Europe, Pacific-focused US, and imperial-focused Russia, mean any negotiations will fluctuate around a less than ideal outcome for Ukraine.

But if Europe makes some simple policy changes, it could either force serious momentum into Ukraine's side and finish the war within a reasonable timetable of negotiations (6 months - year), or at least shift the center of negotiations to a much more favorable position for the west.

In that timeframe, Ukraine would need to receive from Europe several thousand long range (>1,000km), thousands of medium range munitions (~500km), dozens of aircraft per month, tens of thousands of JDAMs or equivalent (to dismantle fortifications) and enough equipment to equip about a dozen Ukrainian maneuver divisions.

Within that time also modernize and ready for deployment several dozen full-size divisions to shield NATO allies from an invasion. 

Back that up with a 5% of GDP defense expenditure, and Europe will be able to not only involve itself in the negotiations, but it could also completely dominate the process and shut the US out of European security.

 

 

[MiGG0]

Short term Europe has no capability of that (produciton capabilities needs to be brought up for that) and long term UKR dont have enought of soldiers to use them (they already have shortage of soldiers regardless what Zelensky says). What Europe can do is to use UKR as shield to get time for them. It wont help UKR tough as the time produciton is needed levels UKR is pretty much collapsed state. 

Edited February 19 by MiGG0

[glenn239]

23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In that timeframe, Ukraine would need to receive from Europe several thousand long range (>1,000km), thousands of medium range munitions (~500km), dozens of aircraft per month, tens of thousands of JDAMs or equivalent (to dismantle fortifications) and enough equipment to equip about a dozen Ukrainian maneuver divisions.

The missiles don't exist in those numbers and the factories would have to be built.  A dozen aircraft a month will accomplish nothing and all these munitions require American satellite data to function.  Not sure how many divisions Europe could equip if they stripped their armies, but 12 sounds a bit high.

Edited February 19 by glenn239

[Stargrunt6]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The missiles don't exist in those numbers and the factories would have to be built.  A dozen aircraft a month will accomplish nothing and all these munitions require American satellite data to function.  Not sure how many divisions Europe could equip if they stripped their armies, but 12 sounds a bit high.

And you gotta make sure the weapons aren't sold on the black market

https://www.cato.org/commentary/when-our-weapons-go-missing

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

59 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

And you gotta make sure the weapons aren't sold on the black market

https://www.cato.org/commentary/when-our-weapons-go-missing

 

Great. You just quoted the Kremlin.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Some words of truth from Boris Johnson and Jessica Berlin.

Much like the Gaza plan, Trump is trying to scare Europeans into action. Making false claims is just part of the strategy.

When Trump unveiled the Gaza plan, Netanyahu responded by endorsing it. But in Europe, it only made politicians recoil and criticize Trump instead of offering solutions.

Boris also talks about Russia's frozen assets. Them remaining frozen instead of financing a war machine to tackle Russia is exactly why Europe is powerless. 

On the most basic level, Trump's desire to resolve the conflict in the short term, is admirable. But people will have different opinions on "how". 

An uninvolved Europe, Pacific-focused US, and imperial-focused Russia, mean any negotiations will fluctuate around a less than ideal outcome for Ukraine.

But if Europe makes some simple policy changes, it could either force serious momentum into Ukraine's side and finish the war within a reasonable timetable of negotiations (6 months - year), or at least shift the center of negotiations to a much more favorable position for the west.

In that timeframe, Ukraine would need to receive from Europe several thousand long range (>1,000km), thousands of medium range munitions (~500km), dozens of aircraft per month, tens of thousands of JDAMs or equivalent (to dismantle fortifications) and enough equipment to equip about a dozen Ukrainian maneuver divisions.

Within that time also modernize and ready for deployment several dozen full-size divisions to shield NATO allies from an invasion. 

Back that up with a 5% of GDP defense expenditure, and Europe will be able to not only involve itself in the negotiations, but it could also completely dominate the process and shut the US out of European security.

 

 

People really need to stop playing the 'oh its all a ruse to make people do what he wants.' He is clearly not that clever. His negotiating tactic promising Ukraine would never join NATO, and that Zelensky is a Dictator is clear evidence he is thick as 6 month old concrete.

Bojo, I dont have much respect for him. But if you read his post, it starts 'Of course President Trump is right, and Europe is evil' and then ticks off every single point Trump made as if Europe personally made it, and he busily refutes it. Basically its an effort to sit on the fence and refute everything Trump has been saying, and remain politically acceptable to the right wing whilst doing it. It would make Chancellor Scholtz blush, and he is past master at this kind of thing.

 

[Stargrunt6]

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Great. You just quoted the Kremlin.

I'm finna blow yo mind.

Two opposing sides can agree on some things.

That's how many conservatives became Z-heads.

Weapons should be given responsibly, with an intact and functioning accountability regime in place.

Or:

 

Edited February 20 by Stargrunt6

[urbanoid]

12 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

I'm finna blow yo mind.

Two opposing sides can agree on some things.

That's how many conservatives became Z-heads.

Weapons should be given responsibly, with an intact and functioning accountability regime in place.

Or:

 

>agreeing with ridiculous zigger propaganda

[Mighty_Zuk]

8 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Weapons should be given responsibly, with an intact and functioning accountability regime in place.

One may acknowledge Ukraine's corruption problems without quoting unverified claims originating in the Kremlin.

I remember the one they mention about Gaza. It literally refers to one video from October 7th where they show a narrow zoom and slow-mo on some weapons, and a narrator says "Zelensky" and some other Arab words. and they didn't bother repeating it after they saw none believed them. And how odd, "Midvezhonok" Medvedev posted that video to his TG account.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

People really need to stop playing the 'oh its all a ruse to make people do what he wants.' He is clearly not that clever. His negotiating tactic promising Ukraine would never join NATO, and that Zelensky is a Dictator is clear evidence he is thick as 6 month old concrete.

Bojo, I dont have much respect for him. But if you read his post, it starts 'Of course President Trump is right, and Europe is evil' and then ticks off every single point Trump made as if Europe personally made it, and he busily refutes it. Basically its an effort to sit on the fence and refute everything Trump has been saying, and remain politically acceptable to the right wing whilst doing it. It would make Chancellor Scholtz blush, and he is past master at this kind of thing.

 

Since the negotiations started:

Energy spent on arguing with Trump - 100%.

Energy spent on arming Ukraine - 0%.

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

He is clearly not that clever. His negotiating tactic promising Ukraine would never join NATO, and that Zelensky is a Dictator is clear evidence he is thick as 6 month old concrete.

A 6 month old concrete block that became president twice. If someone in a position of such power is stupid, it's probably just malice confused with stupidity. 

So the question that should be asked isn't whether he's stupid, but whether he has malicious intent? And to that I'd say probably not.

There are 2 ways I see of securing victory:

1. One is to pump so much weapons into Ukraine that holding the frontline and occupied areas becomes untenable for Russia and it is forced to surrender.

2. Another is to secure a ceasefire and win the arms race until the next war starts. 

Both I see as valid. But I am leaning toward the second because of 2 reasons:

1. Unlike Russia, Ukraine relies on human capital to grow and develop, and it's very difficult when you're in total war mode for 3 years already.

2. Neither Europe nor the US under Biden have developed an arms industry capable of fulfilling option #1 properly. Even if the US were to redirect all production earmarked for European customers, it'd hardly be enough, and would require a long lead time with training Ukrainians on stuff they never operated. And it's not going to happen in the forseeable future. The EU is sleepier than Joe, and I see no indication of the US under Trump ramping up production.

 

The micro level events I hear about on the news, are odd. Some worrying. But on the macro level, I see what happens is pretty much what I thought would be the correct course and what I expected of the US under Trump.

We missed the train on arming Ukraine. And every European leader should look at themselves in the mirror before criticizing Trump, because they had the biggest roles in this.

Edited February 20 by Mighty_Zuk

[sunday]

3 hours ago, urbanoid said:

>agreeing with ridiculous zigger propaganda

When a commie says that water is wet, that does not mean that for a normal human being water is dry.

[Stargrunt6]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A 6 month old concrete block that became president twice. If someone in a position of such power is stupid, it's probably just malice confused with stupidity. 

So the question that should be asked isn't whether he's stupid, but whether he has malicious intent? And to that I'd say probably not.

There are 2 ways I see of securing victory:

1. One is to pump so much weapons into Ukraine that holding the frontline and occupied areas becomes untenable for Russia and it is forced to surrender.

2. Another is to secure a ceasefire and win the arms race until the next war starts. 

Both I see as valid. But I am leaning toward the second because of 2 reasons:

1. Unlike Russia, Ukraine relies on human capital to grow and develop, and it's very difficult when you're in total war mode for 3 years already.

2. Neither Europe nor the US under Biden have developed an arms industry capable of fulfilling option #1 properly. Even if the US were to redirect all production earmarked for European customers, it'd hardly be enough, and would require a long lead time with training Ukrainians on stuff they never operated. And it's not going to happen in the forseeable future. The EU is sleepier than Joe, and I see no indication of the US under Trump ramping up production.

 

The micro level events I hear about on the news, are odd. Some worrying. But on the macro level, I see what happens is pretty much what I thought would be the correct course and what I expected of the US under Trump.

We missed the train on arming Ukraine. And every European leader should look at themselves in the mirror before criticizing Trump, because they had the biggest roles in this.

You need well-trained bodies in Ukraine to win. Until NATO shows up, all the hardware in the world won't matter.

[Stargrunt6]

10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Great. You just quoted the Kremlin.

 

3 hours ago, urbanoid said:

>agreeing with ridiculous zigger propaganda

 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

One may acknowledge Ukraine's corruption problems without quoting unverified claims originating in the Kremlin.

Gonna bookmark these for when the smoke clears.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Corrupt regimes abuse the aid they are given. It's not to say it shouldn't be given. But it has a price tag if there's no accountability.

https://www.historynet.com/south-vietnam-corruption/

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

10 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Gonna bookmark these for when the smoke clears.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Corrupt regimes abuse the aid they are given. It's not to say it shouldn't be given. But it has a price tag if there's no accountability.

We're entering the 4th year of this war and we have yet to see any evidence of western supplied Ukrainian arms reaching other destinations.

Ukraine was incredibly corrupt a decade ago, but a lot of the aid it received throughout the war has been conditioned on passing anti-corruption reforms, which Ukraine started implementing before the 2022 invasion. Such reforms were mandated also as part of Ukraine's EU membership process, which began in 2014.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

When a commie says that water is wet, that does not mean that for a normal human being water is dry.

That's right, that's why one should not be parroting zigger putinist propaganda.