A Peace Settlement to the Ukraine War

[TrustMe]

21 minutes ago, Josh said:

It isn't clear what "victory" means for the Russians at this point. At least in terms of what they could realistically achieve. Though I assume holding on to what they've already annexed would be a prerequisite. It's hard to imagine them achieving significantly more than that without another major call up.

Look at what happened after the Argentinian miltary government did in the Falklands war. Everyone one in the country were very pro dictorship after they had invaded. When they lost the war everyone turned against them and they lost power.

It could be like that.

[Mighty_Zuk]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

It isn't clear what "victory" means for the Russians at this point. At least in terms of what they could realistically achieve. Though I assume holding on to what they've already annexed would be a prerequisite. It's hard to imagine them achieving significantly more than that without another major call up.

Russia could cede Donbas and Crimea completely, and Ukraine would join NATO and EU, in return for a Russia-Ukraine trade agreement. Russia would complete the move by shutting its internet off from the world entirely.

Russia could rationalize this decisive victory as the total elimination of Nazi zombies in Ukraine, and benevolently allowing the previously brotherly good Ukrainians reign over their old borders as a gesture of goodwill, boosted further by the new trade which somehow prevents Nazi zombies from growing.

56 minutes ago, Josh said:

Ukraine is a non issue in US politics. Clearly a peaceful resolution to the conflict accepted by both sides would be somewhat beneficial, but short of a complete collapse of Ukraine, the situation there is unlikely to influence US politics significantly. Even a resounding Ukrainian victory or a peace that leads to a return of Feb 2022 borders would probably have almost no effect on voting.

And that's a bad thing. The appeasement policy started by Obama and which persists to this day, where instead of efficiently solving conflicts the US seeks a quick and peaceful resolution, is what eventually leads to more armed conflicts. You don't draw from your savings to pay the bills if you're financially okay, unless you're planning to retire on nothing.

The US effectively let Iran grow as a threat because it appeased it rather than contain it. Same with North Korea. Same with China. And if it pushes Ukraine into it, then the same will happen with Russia. So yeah there's a short term popularity gain, but that's just banking on voters being stupid, which is a very reasonable assumption. Meaning? There has to be a cultural change, or a purge. Or both.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Look at what happened after the Argentinian miltary government did in the Falklands war. Everyone one in the country were very pro dictorship after they had invaded. When they lost the war everyone turned against them and they lost power.

It could be like that.

If you remember something else, when the British Marines and Paras were just about to take Port Stanley, the Americans (mainly Al Haig) were lecturing the Americans 'Peace with Honour!'. Meaning they didnt want an overwhelming victory, because they didnt want the Argentinian regime to fall.

It could be like that too. I dont think they want Putin to fall ultimately.

[seahawk]

7 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

Hahahahahahahahahaha,   Seriouslyy funny, I must sit down more when I read your posts.

 

You are living outside of Russia yet are pro Russia to the point of accepting genocide to make Putin and his pillox look good.  Why nopt go to Russia?  Granted you might be conscripted but you are so pro Russia that is an honour, right?

 

Wjen the soviet union collapsed the majority of the nations involved were 'dispensed with' and independance ratified by the Russian parliament.  This is a matter of record.  So, how on earth do you rationalise the actions since 2014 etc?  The enclaves being claimed in several independant states.  The interferance in the affairs of state of these sovreign nations.  The genocide.  The murders, within Russia as well as outwith the borders of Russia.

 

Comrade, your emperor will no doubt greet you in the halls of the Kremlin with a massive smile and as soon as your use is done, get rid of you with a shiny window or a glow in the dark herbal tea.  You are a herow of the soviet union..........

 

Excuse me, the bathroom telephone is calling me.

 

That is a very western impression. When the Soviet Union fell, all former Republics, except the Baltic countries, became members of the CiS (Commonwealth of Independent States) which by Russian understanding was something like a Russian NATO, or more correctly a Russian version of NATO  that works like Russia thinks NATO works. So basically Russia telling the other states economically and militarily what to do.  So for Russia, being independent meant that those new states are free to do anything that Russia agrees with, but not to do something that Russia does not agree with. If you do not agree with that argument, ask Georgia or Moldova.  

In addition the end of the WarPac and the Soviet Union was different in one important aspect. The WarPac countries were done with Communism, they wanted democracy, individual freedom and economic prosperity. The people in the Soviet Union did want economic improvement, some wanted individual freedom, but few wanted democracy.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 minutes ago, seahawk said:

That is a very western impression. When the Soviet Union fell, all former Republics, except the Baltic countries, became members of the CiS (Commonwealth of Independent States) which by Russian understanding was something like a Russian NATO, or more correctly a Russian version of NATO  that works like Russia thinks NATO works. So basically Russia telling the other states economically and militarily what to do.  So for Russia, being independent meant that those new states are free to do anything that Russia agrees with, but not to do something that Russia does not agree with. If you do not agree with that argument, ask Georgia or Moldova.  

In addition the end of the WarPac and the Soviet Union was different in one important aspect. The WarPac countries were done with Communism, they wanted democracy, individual freedom and economic prosperity. The people in the Soviet Union did want economic improvement, some wanted individual freedom, but few wanted democracy.

I believe it was supposed to be more something like the EEC. Which of course worked brilliantly. They might have aspired to turn it into a military alliance, but the central problem of that was that the senior player, Russia, was broke.

It would be more correct to say 'few were offered real Democracy'. I seem to recall at least 2 states, Azerbaijan and Belarus, went from one corrupt and non Democratic Government, straight into another. At least Russia had the good grace to at least flirt with the idea of becoming Democratic.

[Josh]

23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The US effectively let Iran grow as a threat because it appeased it rather than contain it. Same with North Korea. Same with China. And if it pushes Ukraine into it, then the same will happen with Russia. So yeah there's a short term popularity gain, but that's just banking on voters being stupid, which is a very reasonable assumption. Meaning? There has to be a cultural change, or a purge. Or both.

The other way to look at it is that none of those countries are a direct threat to the US, outside engaging in a nuclear war that would be rather one sided. The entire idea of engaging with China seems flawed in retrospect, but there was little more that could be done to Iran or North Korea without initiating a conflict and there is little direct threat from either one to the US. The US has been pretty consistent in not engaging either of these militarily over the entire course of this century ever since they were labeled the axis of evil, and quite honestly the US can easily survive that ultimately being the wrong course of action.

[seahawk]

25 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I believe it was supposed to be more something like the EEC. Which of course worked brilliantly. They might have aspired to turn it into a military alliance, but the central problem of that was that the senior player, Russia, was broke.

It would be more correct to say 'few were offered real Democracy'. I seem to recall at least 2 states, Azerbaijan and Belarus, went from one corrupt and non Democratic Government, straight into another. At least Russia had the good grace to at least flirt with the idea of becoming Democratic.

Again, you do not read it like Russia. When the CIS was formed it included the United Armed Forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States. This was replaced by the Council of Ministers of Defense of the CIS. This council coordinates military cooperation of the CIS member states, and develops military and defense policy of the CIS. The chairman (apart from 1992-1993) was and is the Russian Minister of Defence.

You need to look at what is was supposed to be, not how it turned out.

Edited July 27, 2023 by seahawk

[Mike1158]

22 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Again, you do not read it like Russia. When the CIS was formed it included the United Armed Forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States. This was replaced by the Council of Ministers of Defense of the CIS. This council coordinates military cooperation of the CIS member states, and develops military and defense policy of the CIS. The chairman (apart from 1992-1993) was and is the Russian Minister of Defence.

You need to look at what is was supposed to be, not how it turned out.

Life is how it is, not how we want it to be.  Live with it as the rest of us do.

[seahawk]

49 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

Life is how it is, not how we want it to be.  Live with it as the rest of us do.

What I believe or do not believe does not really matter. What matters is to understand Russian motivation.

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

That is a very western impression. When the Soviet Union fell, all former Republics, except the Baltic countries, became members of the CiS (Commonwealth of Independent States) which by Russian understanding was something like a Russian NATO, or more correctly a Russian version of NATO  that works like Russia thinks NATO works. So basically Russia telling the other states economically and militarily what to do.  So for Russia, being independent meant that those new states are free to do anything that Russia agrees with, but not to do something that Russia does not agree with. If you do not agree with that argument, ask Georgia or Moldova.  

In addition the end of the WarPac and the Soviet Union was different in one important aspect. The WarPac countries were done with Communism, they wanted democracy, individual freedom and economic prosperity. The people in the Soviet Union did want economic improvement, some wanted individual freedom, but few  none wanted understood democracy.

The ideal Russian regime would be the PRC, you can get rich, you can do as you please, but you do it if the Party allows you to.

[Roman Alymov]

4 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

The ideal Russian regime would be the PRC, you can get rich, you can do as you please, but you do it if the Party allows you to.

  In Russian case, for decades "Party" was US Embassy and other similar institutions.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

The other way to look at it is that none of those countries are a direct threat to the US, outside engaging in a nuclear war that would be rather one sided. The entire idea of engaging with China seems flawed in retrospect, but there was little more that could be done to Iran or North Korea without initiating a conflict and there is little direct threat from either one to the US. The US has been pretty consistent in not engaging either of these militarily over the entire course of this century ever since they were labeled the axis of evil, and quite honestly the US can easily survive that ultimately being the wrong course of action.

The alternative I proposed isn't always military, but rather just a realistic and proactive approach. Those countries just grew economically and militarily without the US applying the necessary pressure. For NK and Iran, military power would be useful. For Russia, China, and Iran again, other forms of pressure could work as well.

Had Ukraine not held up, the US and Europe would be in very deep shit right now.

The threat these countries pose is not only nuclear but also economical, and if we let them grow unattended they'll be military threats as well. Well, they already are.

[Strannik]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Short of Ukrainian collapse, no one cares.

So why leak now?

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Had Ukraine not held up, the US and Europe would be in very deep shit right now.

No, they would have been working again  hand to glove with Russian elite on "as usual" basis, with money looted in Russia stored in Western banks, Russian national funds invested into Western debt, new generations of Russian elite educated in Western schools and univercities to replace existing generation of political and business elite (who, with all their pro-Western positions, are still mostly Soviet generation). Within couple of decades, Russia would have been  transformed into outright colony of "golden billion" with top tier of business and bureoucracy of Russia allowed to be second class members . Luckily, it did not happened - now we have major war and future elite is forming itself on battlefield.

[Stefan Kotsch]

@Roman Alymov 

Nobody prevents you from building a big wall around Russia and then living happily in self-isolation.  Do this and let your neighbors live in peace.

 Tsar Peter I. turns in his grave...

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

@Roman Alymov 

Nobody prevents you from building a big wall around Russia and then living happily in self-isolation.  Do this and let your neighbors live in peace.

 Tsar Peter I. turns in his grave...

To construct this wall, first we have to reach the places where it is to be constructed. 

  By the way there is a school of thought in Russia that believe that many flaws of Russian development since XVIII century are results of Peter the Greaf-era decisions, as he have ruined some of centuries-old traditional institutions.

[RETAC21]

9 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

@Roman Alymov 

Nobody prevents you from building a big wall around Russia and then living happily in self-isolation.  Do this and let your neighbors live in peace.

 Tsar Peter I. turns in his grave...

Unfortunately, Roman is missing the reality in front of his eyes, that the rest of the World couldn't care less for Russia except for the resources they sell, but Russia couldn't leave it at that, and now dreams of a new elite rising out of the battlefield, which never, ever, worked in the past, much less in Russia.

[Stefan Kotsch]

9 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

To construct this wall, first we have to reach the places where it is to be constructed. 

This is the plan. The dream of a Russia that never existed.

 You could call Roman a muddlehead.  But his government thinks the same way.

 

[Josh]

59 minutes ago, Strannik said:

So why leak now?

I’m not sure what you mean.

[Strannik]

6 minutes ago, Josh said:

I’m not sure what you mean.

The article about the informal talks was leaked now, at least few months later.

[Josh]

Just now, Strannik said:

The article about the informal talks was leaked now, at least few months later.

I’ve no idea why it was leaked but nobody in the US who isn’t specifically a foreign policy nerd will ever hear about it, so o don’t see it as relevant. Honestly it didn’t even turn up in my news feed; tanknet is the first I’ve heard of it.

[Strannik]

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

I’ve no idea why it was leaked but nobody in the US who isn’t specifically a foreign policy nerd will ever hear about it, so o don’t see it as relevant. Honestly it didn’t even turn up in my news feed; tanknet is the first I’ve heard of it.

I meant that it was a signal (not to hoi polloi  of course).  Also multiple articles in western press all of a sudden entertaining the negotiated settlement soonish.  Those are for plebs.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Strannik

[Stefan Kotsch]

@Strannik

Never read.  Which articles in which newspapers?

[mandeb48]

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

USSR's dissolution is the best thing that happened to Russia.

because.....?

How many Russians have you met personally and how many of them share that idea?

[BansheeOne]

Actually I suspect that all the talk of 

Quote

“In fact, we emphasized that the U.S. needs, and will continue to need, a strong enough Russia to create stability along its periphery. The U.S. wants a Russia with strategic autonomy in order for the U.S. to advance diplomatic opportunities in Central Asia. We in the U.S. have to recognize that total victory in Europe could harm our interests in other areas of the world. 

“Russian power,” he concluded, “is not necessarily a bad thing.” 

combined with

Quote

The problem was less with the Russian elite as a whole than it was with Putin specifically, he explained. 

“Putin is the major block to all progress,” he said. “The U.S. administration has made at least  one attempt to speak with the Kremlin but Putin himself refused.” 

For this reason, he argued, Washington “should begin reaching out to the anti-war Russian elite and begin making progress with them.” 

is aimed at a Russian, not a Western audience, signaling that Russia could get out of this okay if they only got rid of Putin. Though I'd call that a rather hopeful approach.