The Kremlin is burning?

[seahawk]

But this is the bare minimum for Russia. The unconditional surrender of the Ukraien and the re-integration into Russia should be the primary goal, as only this guarantees that the listed goals are met. Especially Demilitarization and Denazification must be done under Russian control.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Yes, up to 2006 the Russians were not willing to resist NATO expansion  happy with NATO admitting new members because they wanted to join also, and the Baltic States joined.   By in 2008 the Russians went to war with Georgia to prevent NATO expansion there.   You would agree that a war with Georgia was a hint 14 years before the war in Ukraine that no further expansion would be welcome? 

There we go, fixed it for you. Please dont let it happen again.

The turning point you  and so many others completely missed was 2007. Its unclear what precisely happened, but there was a claim that the FSB had been priming Putin after Breslan, and said that it had been Western Intelligence agencies that had instigated it. Or maybe he just recognised he was never going to be invited to join NATO. Or maybe he just recognised rearmament was another pot he could steal spare change out of.  Or, maybe he was frightened about being displaced, and thought being more aggressive to the west would appeal to his backers in the Federal Mafia Bureau. Whatever, in 2007 he went to Munch and gave this rather worldchanging speech. Course we didnt recognise as such at the time, because most of the people present were a bit thick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin

And the following year we had Georgia, the first time he tried to demonstrate his manliness on the world stage. There was a clear link between the two events.

Of course, one shouldnt get misty eyed about missed opportunities. The loss of the Kursk was in 2000, and instinctively he blamed the West for what was clearly an Admiralty screwup. And there was the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, not to mention the apartment bombings in 1999 for which he was direclty responsible. One shouldnt mistake western cluelessness for a deeply venal man biding his time. And when he figured he wasnt going to get any more out the west, he kicked them loose and blamed them for the dispute he deliberately manufactured.

Thats what happened, dont kid yourself otherwise.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The turning point you  and so many others completely missed was 2007.
...
Or maybe he just recognised he was never going to be invited to join NATO.

I think the tipping point came when Putin realized that his desires for a 'Yalta 2.0' were an illusion. He has always wanted to divide the world among the superpowers into spheres of influence. That never worked. Now Putin had to take the initiative quickly and aggressively. Yes, Putin's speech in Munich in 2007 was a final milestone here.

Edited May 22 by Stefan Kotsch

[Stuart Galbraith]

58 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

I think the tipping point came when Putin realized that his desires for a 'Yalta 2.0' were an illusion. He has always wanted to divide the world among the superpowers into spheres of influence. That never worked. Now Putin had to take the initiative quickly and aggressively. Yes, Putin's speech in Munich in 2007 was a final milestone here.

Yes, entirely possibly.

Putin always seems to have an inflated sense of Russia's position. He actually thought the Americans should deal with him as if Russia were still a great power, as if it were still the USSR. That no Empire in history that has fallen has been given such largesse, not to least the British, French or Japanese, never seemed to occur to him. The USSR/Russia were not particularly forgiving to the Empires that preceded them come to that.

I do find it depressing how many people on this grate site breathlessly look forward to a 'multi polar world.' What they are essentially asking for is the world of Pre 1914, and we all remember how well that worked. For all Globalisms flaws, they make mankind lean on everyone else, making war somewhat less likely. Russia has never accepted this position, they still ardently believe in Ruski Mir. I doubt this will change, even if by some Miracle Putin falls.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

He actually thought the Americans should deal with him as if Russia were still a great power, as if it were still the USSR.

In a way, the Russians have come to a standstill in 1945 with their political mentality. But that was 80 years ago and the world has changed dramatically.

In such huge countries, there is probably always the danger of stewing in your own juice and dreaming in unrealistic regions. Because you don't think you need equal partners. I don't exclude today's USA. Or China.
 

[mandeb48]

7 hours ago, seahawk said:

But this is the bare minimum for Russia. The unconditional surrender of the Ukraien and the re-integration into Russia should be the primary goal, as only this guarantees that the listed goals are met. Especially Demilitarization and Denazification must be done under Russian control.

You must really hate Russia to want it to take over Ukraine in the future, a country with appalling demographics, unpayable debts, an economy sustained by EU funds, deteriorating/destroyed infrastructure, and countless post-war problems. A toxic package for anyone.

Edited May 22 by mandeb48

[Stuart Galbraith]

The question is whom would get the worse deal. Russia taking over Ukraine, or Ukraine taking over Russia?

[seahawk]

14 minutes ago, mandeb48 said:

You must really hate Russia to want it to take over Ukraine in the future, a country with appalling demographics, unpayable debts, an economy sustained by EU funds, deteriorating/destroyed infrastructure, and countless post-war problems. A toxic package for anyone.

It is a historical duty to unite all Russian under one rule.

[JWB]

Listen here!

 

[glenn239]

7 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

I think the tipping point came when Putin realized that his desires for a 'Yalta 2.0' were an illusion. He has always wanted to divide the world among the superpowers into spheres of influence. That never worked. Now Putin had to take the initiative quickly and aggressively. Yes, Putin's speech in Munich in 2007 was a final milestone here.

The tipping point came in 2008 when Putin used military force in Georgia to prevent NATO expansion.  

[Stefan Kotsch]

28 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

2008 when Putin used military force in Georgia to prevent NATO expansion.

At that time, it had already tipped over. It is merely the symptom.

[Josh]

18 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Here's the CHAT GPT summary,

At the Istanbul negotiations in April 2022, part of the broader diplomatic efforts to end the war that began with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia presented a set of demands as part of a proposed peace framework. These negotiations were seen as the most substantive diplomatic engagement between the two sides during the early phase of the war.

Here are Russia's key demands during those talks:

1. Ukrainian Neutrality
Russia demanded that Ukraine adopt a neutral status, meaning:

Ukraine would not join NATO or any other military alliance.

Ukraine would agree not to host foreign military bases or troops on its soil.

This neutrality would be enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution.

2. Security Guarantees
In exchange for neutrality, Ukraine sought security guarantees from other countries (like the U.S., U.K., Turkey, and others), similar to NATO's Article 5 (collective defense).

Russia demanded that these guarantees not replicate NATO-style obligations and not contradict Ukraine's non-aligned status.

3. Recognition of Crimea
Russia demanded that Ukraine formally recognize Crimea as part of Russia.

Ukraine rejected this, proposing to resolve the issue over 15 years through bilateral negotiations and without the use of force.

4. Recognition of “People’s Republics”
Russia wanted Ukraine to recognize the independence of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine refused, insisting on the restoration of its territorial integrity.

5. Demilitarization and Denazification (in broad terms)
While less explicitly detailed in the Istanbul proposals, Russia had earlier insisted on Ukrainian demilitarization and "denazification," which Kyiv and Western analysts considered vague and propagandistic.

These terms were reportedly softened or not emphasized as strongly during the Istanbul round.

So point 5 confirms that a Russian goal has always required for Ukraine to demilitarize to the point of making the next invasion effort easily successful, along with points 1 & 2 insisting no useful security arrangements could exist.

I will grant you that the territorial demands were less extreme, but keep in mind that this junction they controlled most of the Kherson oblast on the West Bank and half of Kharkiv.

But I stand by my assertion that the Russian position was effectively surrender from the get go - at no point was Ukraine going to be allowed to defend itself or enter into any arrangement with an outside party that could actually ensure its security. It would simply be Czechoslovak in 1938: give up any possibility of defending yourself for “peace” and then be militarily forced to give the rest at slightly later date.

There was never anything like a realistic or acceptable peace offer.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The tipping point came in 2008 when Putin used military force in Georgia to prevent NATO expansion.  

I'm sorry but it is some sort of alternative history. By the 2008, it was common narrative (not exactly baseless) both in the West and inside Russia that RF lost second war to Chechens and arranged to pay annual ransom to separatists leaders in exchange for them formally (but not factually) staying inside RF. More over, liberal military analysts like Pavel Fingelgauer (by the way where is he now?) were predicting shiny new NATO-trained army of Georgia to reach Rostov-on-Don. No surprise West-sponsored leadership of Georgia ( President Saakashvilli, who is now doing his time in Georgian jail) decided to start by retaking Spith Ossetia, and if it requires killing couple of hundreds of RusArmy peacekeepers stationed there - so be it, who cares?  So "collective Putin" was cornered into deciding to retreat  as usual (and face new tour of civil war on Caucasus or reply with military forse (with unpredictable outcome, as common narative was that Georgian army got nice chanses to prevail). Luckily, despite of all the training, shiny uniforms and equipment, Gerorgians folded under the pressure of only three batalion tactical groups of Rus Army (sonce squising troops through mountains was hard and long process). But on 080808 nobody was able to predict the outcome with certanty.....

[glenn239]

19 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

At that time, it had already tipped over. It is merely the symptom.

The situation was recoverable up to at least April 2022.  Georgia in 2008 was nowhere near departure from controlled flight.  

[glenn239]

18 hours ago, Josh said:

So point 5 confirms that a Russian goal has always required for Ukraine to demilitarize to the point of making the next invasion effort easily successful, along with points 1 & 2 insisting no useful security arrangements could exist.

The political doctrine underpinning the armaments provisions was established in 1944 with Finland, then carried over to Austria within a few years.

Quote

But I stand by my assertion that the Russian position was effectively surrender from the get go - at no point was Ukraine going to be allowed to defend itself or enter into any arrangement with an outside party.

Russia was not and is not going to tolerate Ukraine in NATO, and Russia will escalate up to and including the use of nuclear weapons to inflict unconditional surrender upon Ukraine, if EU intransigence proves this to be necessary.  That was always the case.  Unfair?  Of course.  An unworkable for Ukraine?  No, it could have been done, just like Finland and Austria managed.

Edited May 23 by glenn239

[glenn239]

17 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

I'm sorry but it is some sort of alternative history.

I say Georgia 2008 was the first time Putin used military force to break up NATO expansion.  Whether you and Strelkov and the glorious people's revolution agree with that or not is immaterial.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I say Georgia 2008 was the first time Putin used military force to break up NATO expansion.  

It was not "NATO expansion" but direct military attack with dozens of Russian soldiers killed. So it was the first time Russian elite openly opposed with lethal force against NATO-backed attack. Before that, it was unthinkable at official level (while tactical commanders were ready fporm that - see Prishtina raid)

[glenn239]

49 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

It was not "NATO expansion" but direct military attack with dozens of Russian soldiers killed. So it was the first time Russian elite openly opposed with lethal force against NATO-backed attack. Before that, it was unthinkable at official level (while tactical commanders were ready fporm that - see Prishtina raid)

It all came about right at the moment Bush started talking about Georgia in NATO.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The political doctrine underpinning the armaments provisions was established in 1944 with Finland, then carried over to Austria within a few years.

Russia was not and is not going to tolerate Ukraine in NATO, and Russia will escalate up to and including the use of nuclear weapons to inflict unconditional surrender upon Ukraine, if EU intransigence proves this to be necessary.  That was always the case.  Unfair?  Of course.  An unworkable for Ukraine?  No, it could have been done, just like Finland and Austria managed.

Your two examples ignore the fact that Putin himself has stated that there is no such thing as Ukraine pre 2022. There was never going to be a Finland option, and I think you know that. Just ask Roman.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The situation was recoverable up to at least April 2022.  Georgia in 2008 was nowhere near departure from controlled flight.  

The only thing being decided in 2022 was how and on what timeline most or all of Ukraine was to be annexed. The multi axis attack clearly intended to take the West Bank of the Dneiper. Again, just listen to Roman and Putin’s own statements on the subject going back to the summer of 2021: Ukraine is not a country.

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

The only thing being decided in 2022 was how and on what timeline most or all of Ukraine was to be annexed. The multi axis attack clearly intended to take the West Bank of the Dneiper. Again, just listen to Roman and Putin’s own statements on the subject going back to the summer of 2021: Ukraine is not a country.

Not matching the reality, unfortunatelly - as reality was RusArmy units were directly ordered not to remove flags of Ukraine from administrative buildings, keep old administrations etc. as "collective Putin" was in hope they would just negotiate some sort of "return to Minsk agreements" and pull out. Here is example from my old post - Russian rock singer (!) removing the flag of Ukraine from city administration building as RusArmy in control of the city were under strict order not to do it (but, at least, also not ordered to guard it) 

 

Edited May 23 by Roman Alymov

[Roman Alymov]

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

Your two examples ignore the fact that Putin himself has stated that there is no such thing as Ukraine pre 2022. There was never going to be a Finland option, and I think you know that. Just ask Roman.

But Roman is the first to state that Putin would have been happy to have avoided the entire war in the first place.  

[Mike1158]

Putin would have wanted Ukrainians to bow down and kiss his spotty arse and apparently, they do not want to do that.

 

Why has put in the spot NOT noticed that?

 

Something reported when this kicked off was put in the spot remarking that "If Ukrainians do not stop resisting we will shoot them more".

 

The slipping of cheese from cracker must have happened a LOOOOOOOOONG time ago in the Kremlin...

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

But Roman is the first to state that Putin would have been happy to have avoided the entire war in the first place.  

His response surprises me, but he’s also been saying 1) Ukraine is not a country and 2) Putin is ready to surrender for the last three years. I have no idea if flags were left on buildings or not, but he is rewriting history in his mind if he thinks the thrust towards Odessa and the encirclement of Kiev we’re going to leave anything left of Ukraine outside a small rump landlocked state, assuming even that survived. The attack pattern very clearly was not a “return to Minsk” and Putin publicly declared Ukraine not a country in 2021.