War in Ukraine

[snytaxx]

No, I would not have accepted a 'surrender', what would have been accepted was an end to hostilities. I very much doubt that a signed deal would have swung upon the wording of the document having 'surrender' in it.

As stated, regardless that deal was far far better than any then can get now.

Literally not what your source days, the Ukrainians felt it was abject surrender - no point arguing with me, argue with yourself, im quoting from materials which are supposed to back up your arguement.

Isn't it obvious? The deal on offer would have seen Russia withdrawning in the east back to 2020 lines. Now, Russia has taken most of 3 of the 4 eastern sectors and won't be withdrawing from them.....something it stated once these talks broke down.

Nowhere in your article does it say this, it says it would be up to Putin and Zelensky, to personally sit down and agree on a border. You are assumeing Putin in 2022 would be more generous than the putin in 2024 but have literally not a shred of evidence past 'trust me bro'.

The other blindingly obvious reality is that Ukraine get a far worse deal, losing much of its national mineral mining resources...This would have been recovered in the 2022 deal.

Keep saying its obvious - literally the material you post to try and back up your point doesnt mention this at all and even goes as far as to contradict this. Please provide some other evidence which suggests putin would have been more generous in 2022 then now.

Was you living in a shoebox at the time?

Yes it's called living in London

Boris Johnson warns against a Ukraine-Russia peace deal

There is "absolutely no sign" that Russia wants to reach a deal with Ukraine, says Boris Johnson.

www.bbc.com

Again... please - read the stuff you are posting 😀

I'm quoting from your article, i'm not putting a definititve opinion on what happened, I wasn't there. But you keep mention about how Boris told Zelensky 'not to sign' then link me to an article in which the people say this isnt what happened. Boris refused to sign on the UK's behalf, if thats true or not, dont know, but you're the once putting forward this as 'evidence', not me.

"Die Welt writes that Davyd Arakhamiia, a member of the Ukrainian delegation, suggested in November 2023 why the leaders of the two countries had not met. The then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv on 9 April and said that London would "not sign anything" with Putin and that Ukraine should continue fighting. Later, Johnson rejected ever saying that."

Well, security guarantees from supporting nations is what Ukraine would have argued for rather than Russia. Regardless, you seem to be confusing a draft document with a final finished one.....We never got to see that one as Ukraine's backers were under the impression Russia was going to be beaten back.

Well they were half right, Russia went on to lose Sumy, the entire northern flank, Kharkiv, Kherson, Snake Island and half the black sea flight. But I guess this was Russia's plan right?

I think from the judgement abilities you are displaying here you should apply for a job in the DoD.

I'm not American.

So essentially you have been told there were 'leaks'.....I mean, that must be legit right.
I have little doubt that in a best case scenario many in Russia were hoping for a rapid Ukrainian collapse along the lines of what happened in Kherson and Crimea before that.

However, I think it's likely just hyperbole to think that Russia didn't expect resistance if not for the simple fact that it invaded with hundreds of thousands of troops......So they prepared for multiple eventualities.

I havent been told anything! I dont claim to be 'in the know'.

Lucashenko said this in his infamous interview. It's totally possible that he just made this up or gave his opinion. Its also equally possible he saw the writing on the wall and felt there was no need to keep things a secret. Either way, when people try to cope about Russia's dismal performance, you essentially have to go down an arguement that 'its all a big coincidence'. Which it might well be, it just becomes more and more laughable to use this line each time more and more evidence is added.

However, I think it's fair to say that they underestimated Ukraine's willingness to fight as hard as they did.

Understatement of the year!

As I stated, we won't for sure until...probably a while after the war is over.

You think Russia is just gonna tell everyone an honest figure? Care to place a bet?

Apparently this attitude is a problem for you.....the guy who would rather put his trust in the BBC.

I always like this line.

I constantly like my journalism on the same basis I like to keep my shoebox house warm.

But I don't want no 'industry regulated mainstream contractor' who has a CORGI certiticate, urgh no! I'm not a sheep. Instead I get my boiler serviced by a guy who tells me to just subcribe to him for the latest energy industry information. He posts lots of stuff on X, all of it always true and his handle is BRITISHGASISTHEDEEPSTATE, he must be good.

My point, I don't think any news media is perfect, infact I think the BBC is dreadful in many many ways, its interview with Clarkson for example is a perfect example. The fact they also talk about aid to Ukraine in monetary values as if we are handing over suitcases full of cash is also really poor form. But it doesnt mean everything they do is wrong, and i'd much rather a journalistic outfit take a bit of pride in their work, espiecally when they get it wrong than Elon fecking Musk or whichever silicon valley grifter claiming to be the next beacon of truth right now.

When has the US stood for this?

If Russia somehow flipped the Canadian government to be anti US and pro Russia I think you are deluding yourself that the US would sit by and accept it.

This is two points

I don't doubt for one moment that the US has directly attacked its neighbours. Domincan Republic, Grenada and Panama are good examples. Nor has it been 'happy' to have unfriendly neighbours on its doorstep. Thats basic knowledge, but before you claim this somehow justifies total war in Europe there are more occasions where the US has not directly intervened and basically had a diplomatic hissy fit while conducting proxy or covert inerventions, which of course is not comparable to Ukraine. Cuba, Guyana, Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala are perfect examples of this.

My point - the cold war ended over 30 years ago. To use an example of a policy from 1823 which specifically opposed european colonialism (the Ukraine war being a perfect example of this) isn't the 'like for like' you think it is.

As for Canada, again your arguement only makes sense if there was an actual coup d'etat and links into colour theory. It has to omit loads of really inconvenient things like the government figure being voted out by their own party and subsequent election results which dont fit the narrative. Lastly it's also a bit racist as it suggests that people that live in countries which have russian interests are incapable of protesting their government and have to be stage managed by the CIA. It's real fruitcake stuff.

Back in the 90s the cold war had finished and relations between Russia and the west were constructive even though there were uncomfortable reactions to Nato expansion in much of Russia intelligentsia. Even if it had wanted to Russia, back in the 90s, was not in a military or internal state where it could have resisted Nato enlargement. It was suffering major economic decline from the effort to shift to a purely capitalistic system....the era of the oligarchs.

Putin started out as pro western and relations between him and the west were constructive until the Serbian war where they steadily declined. The colour revolutions starting in 2004 accelerated this. The Ukrainian situation was much commented and warned upon long before hostilities occurred.

When before 2014? How does any of this undo Russia's / USSRs commitments to Ukraine's security as a member of the UN (1945 & 1975) and bilaterally in 1991, 1994 and 1997?

 

[Ouzo Dan]

Russian press conference re strike on Dnipro.
To paraphrase do not comment on the Missile.

You really should start preparing.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Literally not what your source days, the Ukrainians felt it was abject surrender - no point arguing with me, argue with yourself, im quoting from materials which are supposed to back up your arguement.

You stated that no one could find the deal that was on offer in 2022.....I literally found the details of it on the first search I put in. It took roughly 30 seconds.

Then you take a comment about surrender on a deal that hadn't been finalised but was considered to be approaching agreement as some indication that Ukraine wouldn't sign perhaps?......Well no one is suggesting that Ukraine were happy with the deal, however what matters are outcomes and avoiding far worse ones.

If Biden and Johnson hadn't been against signing and hadn't promised embarked on this disaster then it's highly likely that Ukraine and Russia would have reached agreement.

.
Nowhere in your article does it say this, it says it would be up to Putin and Zelensky, to personally sit down and agree on a border. You are assumeing Putin in 2022 would be more generous than the putin in 2024 but have literally not a shred of evidence past 'trust me bro'.

That's what I have read previously that Russia said they would keep Crimea but go back to 2020 lines in the Donbas if they had cast iron commitments.

Keep saying its obvious - literally the material you post to try and back up your point doesnt mention this at all and even goes as far as to contradict this. Please provide some other evidence which suggests putin would have been more generous in 2022 then now.

Logic should make it plain to you that if they had reached agreement in 2022 Russia's gains in the east were far less than they are now. If, as looks the more likely, they reach agreement at some point in 2025 Russia has progressed far further into the Donbas and so any deal is going to look far worse for Ukraine than what 2022 had on offer.

Yes it's called living in London

Again... please - read the stuff you are posting 😀

An article on deal details that you apparently didn't think was out there, which you could have found as easily as I did.

I'm quoting from your article, i'm not putting a definititve opinion on what happened, I wasn't there. But you keep mention about how Boris told Zelensky 'not to sign' then link me to an article in which the people say this isnt what happened. Boris refused to sign on the UK's behalf, if thats true or not, dont know, but you're the once putting forward this as 'evidence', not me.

"Die Welt writes that Davyd Arakhamiia, a member of the Ukrainian delegation, suggested in November 2023 why the leaders of the two countries had not met. The then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv on 9 April and said that London would "not sign anything" with Putin and that Ukraine should continue fighting. Later, Johnson rejected ever saying that."

Maybe Johnson went to Kiev for shopping or something.

Well they were half right, Russia went on to lose Sumy, the entire northern flank, Kharkiv, Kherson, Snake Island and half the black sea flight. But I guess this was Russia's plan right?

Again, Ukraine is in a far worse position now than it was in 2022.

Back when this deal was on offer Russia had invaded with what it considered was enough troops. Ukrainian resistance proved otherwise and yes Russia fell back in some areas. However, their are considerable difference in access to resources between Ukraine and Russia on population size and military production capacity.

No one sensible out there ever believed that Ukraine could win a war of attrition and the strategy was based upon knocking out Russia's economy to convince them to stop. As I said at the time it was a high risk strategy that wasn't likely to succeed due to demand on Russia's resources......Once again hubris and an over estimation of the extent of US influence in the world played out.

Russia hasn't even taken out a general mobilization and Ukraine has had two, has teams of military press ganging civilians off of the streets and is being pressured to lower its conscription age.

I'm not American.

Sorry, I meant MoD.

I havent been told anything! I dont claim to be 'in the know'.

Lucashenko said this in his infamous interview. It's totally possible that he just made this up or gave his opinion. Its also equally possible he saw the writing on the wall and felt there was no need to keep things a secret. Either way, when people try to cope about Russia's dismal performance, you essentially have to go down an arguement that 'its all a big coincidence'. Which it might well be, it just becomes more and more laughable to use this line each time more and more evidence is added.

I've already mentioned that Russia underestimated the level of Ukrainian resistance. I've also heard it said that they received intelligence that what happened in Kherson would be the response in most of Ukraine....which was clearly not the case.

Regardless, I'm not particularly bothered about whether Russia wanted or thought it could win in three days or not. People who are very keen for Ukraine to do well seem to get very emotional on this point.

Understatement of the year!

As I say.

You think Russia is just gonna tell everyone an honest figure? Care to place a bet?

You want me to have a bet with you? A random on the Internet where there are no means of collecting? A sportsman's bet perhaps? Regardless, didn't I just say this very thing.....that certainty over figures is impossible and that both sides lie.

However, due to Russia's constant superiority in artillery and the fact that the majority of deaths in war come from artillery it isn't even a serious contention on who has suffered the most losses. If you think otherwise that's cool, it's a pointless aspect to argue over as the battlefield lines speak for themselves.

I always like this line.

I constantly like my journalism on the same basis I like to keep my shoebox house warm.

But I don't want no 'industry regulated mainstream contractor' who has a CORGI certiticate, urgh no! I'm not a sheep. Instead I get my boiler serviced by a guy who tells me to just subcribe to him for the latest energy industry information. He posts lots of stuff on X, all of it always true and his handle is BRITISHGASISTHEDEEPSTATE, he must be good.

My point, I don't think any news media is perfect, infact I think the BBC is dreadful in many many ways, its interview with Clarkson for example is a perfect example. The fact they also talk about aid to Ukraine in monetary values as if we are handing over suitcases full of cash is also really poor form. But it doesnt mean everything they do is wrong, and i'd much rather a journalistic outfit take a bit of pride in their work, espiecally when they get it wrong than Elon fecking Musk or whichever silicon valley grifter claiming to be the next beacon of truth right now.

Ok...

This is two points

I don't doubt for one moment that the US has directly attacked its neighbours. Domincan Republic, Grenada and Panama are good examples. Nor has it been 'happy' to have unfriendly neighbours on its doorstep. Thats basic knowledge, but before you claim this somehow justifies total war in Europe there are more occasions where the US has not directly intervened and basically had a diplomatic hissy fit while conducting proxy or covert inerventions, which of course is not comparable to Ukraine. Cuba, Guyana, Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala are perfect examples of this.

My point - the cold war ended over 30 years ago. To use an example of a policy from 1823 which specifically opposed european colonialism (the Ukraine war being a perfect example of this) isn't the 'like for like' you think it is.

As for Canada, again your arguement only makes sense if there was an actual coup d'etat and links into colour theory. It has to omit loads of really inconvenient things like the government figure being voted out by their own party and subsequent election results which dont fit the narrative. Lastly it's also a bit racist as it suggests that people that live in countries which have russian interests are incapable of protesting their government and have to be stage managed by the CIA. It's real fruitcake stuff.

Who's coping again?

Again, the idea that the US would have accepted a situation that Russia found itself in is just at odds with history and Monroe doctrine.

When before 2014? How does any of this undo Russia's / USSRs commitments to Ukraine's security as a member of the UN (1945 & 1975) and bilaterally in 1991, 1994 and 1997?

I just made a point about how Putin's positions have differed and changed since he came to power and that it takes two to tango. The point was that this was all very avoidable.

 

[snytaxx]

You stated that no one could find the deal that was on offer in 2022.....I literally found the details of it on the first search I put in. It took roughly 30 seconds.

Then you take a comment about surrender on a deal that hadn't been finalised but was considered to be approaching agreement as some indication that Ukraine wouldn't sign perhaps?......Well no one is suggesting that Ukraine were happy with the deal, however what matters are outcomes and avoiding far worse ones.

If Biden and Johnson hadn't been against signing and hadn't promised embarked on this disaster then it's highly likely that Ukraine and Russia would have reached agreement.

Correct, but your arguement which is rapidly falling apart by your own evidence provided was that 2022 Putin would have been more generous than 2024 Putin. You haven't provided any evidence for this, in fact you've done the contrary. Summarising our discussion doesn't absolve you of this.

That's what I have read previously that Russia said they would keep Crimea but go back to 2020 lines in the Donbas if they had cast iron commitments.

I don't doubt you might have read something somewhere, I read that Putin has cancer, doesn't make it true. The more I Google this the more I find information which directly contradicts what you say (happy to post links) that's why I'm asking to back up what you say.

Logic should make it plain to you that if they had reached agreement in 2022 Russia's gains in the east were far less than they are now. If, as looks the more likely, they reach agreement at some point in 2025 Russia has progressed far further into the Donbas and so any deal is going to look far worse for Ukraine than what 2022 had on offer.

Again, I note a subtle changing of the goal posts. Why does the war have to just be measured by 'gains in the east?' why not all fronts? Let's use your logic. In March 2022 when the deal was on the take Russia occupied 27% of Ukraine. Now they occupy 21%. How does this equate to more leverage?

An article on deal details that you apparently didn't think was out there, which you could have found as easily as I did.

Nice deflect but not quite. You found an article which suggests how negotiations went, but actually just confirm there was no 'oven ready' deal and actually explains quite well why a deal was not feesable.

Maybe Johnson went to Kiev for shopping or something.

Again... Irrelevant to the point, your original charge was that Boris scuppered a deal that Zelenskys could have signed and therefore Zelensky made a poor decision. You then present evidence to back this up which actually says Zelensky never even had a choice as the deal was dead anyway as it needed Johnson to agree (which he allegedly wouldn't). My point was that none of us know for sure, so why pretend to?

Again, Ukraine is in a far worse position now than it was in 2022.

Depends how you measure it. By manpower and infrastructure damage yes.

By equipment and land retaken, the opposite is true.

Also flipping this around as two sides make a deal.

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that everything on the Russian side is better than it was in 2022?

Back when this deal was on offer Russia had invaded with what it considered was enough troops. Ukrainian resistance proved otherwise and yes Russia fell back in some areas. However, their are considerable difference in access to resources between Ukraine and Russia on population size and military production capacity.

Sure, but how does agreeing to a deal while in a worse short term position (which you have just agreed is the case) automatically translate to getting a better deal than what's available (assuming something is available) now?

No one sensible out there ever believed that Ukraine could win a war of attrition and the strategy was based upon knocking out Russia's economy to convince them to stop. As I said at the time it was a high risk strategy that wasn't likely to succeed due to demand on Russia's resources......Once again hubris and an over estimation of the extent of US influence in the world played out.

No one 'sensible' ever thought that Vietnam could win, or Afghanistan (twice). You'll note that technically also none of these factions did win. They just didn't lose, that's the difference. The idea that Ukraine will drive Russia fully out of its territory I agree I think is unrealistic at this stage. But likewise why is the idea of an independent Ukraine (or the 75% of it that comes out of this war) joining the EU and NATO so u realistic past people saying "but Russia would not like it".

I think your issue is you view everything in absolutes when the situation is highly nuanced.

I've already mentioned that Russia underestimated the level of Ukrainian resistance. I've also heard it said that they received intelligence that what happened in Kherson would be the response in most of Ukraine....which was clearly not the case.

Regardless, I'm not particularly bothered about whether Russia wanted or thought it could win in three days or not. People who are very keen for Ukraine to do well seem to get very emotional on this point.

Right, but ceding this point (which you have) does damage to your argument about Russia being in a better position now.

Using your logic, if Russia knows it's going to have a really tough old time winning or a least a tougher time, why does that put it in a stronger position? You can't have both "Russia strong" but "well Russia was always going to struggle" arguments co-existing at the peace table.

As I say.



You want me to have a bet with you? A random on the Internet where there are no means of collecting? A sportsman's bet perhaps? Regardless, didn't I just say this very thing.....that certainty over figures is impossible and that both sides lie.

I was using it as a figure of speech. But I would actually place a bet on this, it would be perfectly feasible to run. The issue is Russia will probably claim it lost 4 people and a marine Dolphin after this war. Even if the true figure leaks. Russia would likely deny it so other than relying on a third party source. The truth will never really be known. So far the third party sources make grim reading for Russia and Ukraine to be fair.

Who's coping again?

Again, the idea that the US would have accepted a situation that Russia found itself in is just at odds with history and Monroe doctrine.

It's still you on this one.

You asked me for some examples of when the US would actually 'have stood' (the definition here being to not launch a full scale war on your neighbours). I gave you more examples of when it has stood for your original whataboutism point than when it hasn't.

I then went on to point out why the Munroe Doctorine is actually a very poor defence for Russian actions. You haven't addressed this just repeated the original line as though quoting a policy from 1823 is some type of mic drop moment.

I just made a point about how Putin's positions have differed and changed since he came to power and that it takes two to tango. The point was that this was all very avoidable.

Yes Putin could just not have invaded, funny how this hardly ever gets discussed. The focus always has to be some Jeremy Corbyn style self flagellation "we did this".

 

[Stirlingsays]

I could answer all this, and I'm tempted to on some points, but we are just going around in circles.

Let's just see how it goes.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Russian press conference re strike on Dnipro.
To paraphrase do not comment on the Missile.

You really should start preparing.

Russia is using the Big Boys. Conventional warheads , seemingly. Missiles are always problematic to intercept, but in this instance it is the scale of largely indiscriminate destruction that is worrying.
The West upped the staked by sending long range missiles to Ukraine. What did Western leaders think might happen ?

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think what Tucker says in short summary here hits far closer to the truth than many would like to admit.

Tucker use to be a neo con and regrets it and I know what that feels like.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859945168683876385

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

good points made about the money men. However, saying a deal with Russia over Ukraine could have been done early-doors, is using glasses with a rose tint.
I recall at the time negotiations were happening over gained land, there were people stating "you can't appease dictators. Russia will just take more and more of Ukraine further down the line. You can't trust any deals with them".
All I know, is food and fuel prices rose an awful lot because of the hugely successful Western sanctions.

 

[Stirlingsays]

good points made about the money men. However, saying a deal with Russia over Ukraine could have been done early-doors, is using glasses with a rose tint.
I recall at the time negotiations were happening over gained land, there were people stating "you can't appease dictators. Russia will just take more and more of Ukraine further down the line. You can't trust any deals with them".
All I know, is food and fuel prices rose an awful lot because of the hugely successful Western sanctions.

When the details of the 2022 deal are looked at (and personally I think a lot of the eventual deal will look similar) we see that it essentially involves security guarantees from Europe to basically go to war with Russia if it invades Ukraine.

Now, personally I don't agree with that provision, but that was what was up for discussion in the draft agreements that were ended for whatever combination of reasons.

However what is clear is that if you negotiate a peace you are creating demilitarised zones and building up defences and so on. It means the drip drip of Ukraine losing land stops....Well, it's more than a drip at the moment.

My personal belief is that Russia hasn't ambitions beyond the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine but.....unfortunately what is also the case is that it isn't going to stop this war to give Ukraine a chance of taking back the donbas and cutting off the water supply to Crimea.

So to be honest Trump has his work cut out stopping the war......and as I suggested in an earlier post I think the war continues sometime into 2025 until Russia think they can do no more on reducing Ukraine's chances of taking the east back.

 

[Ouzo Dan]

Something that has passed me by recently & is almost certainly linked to the war in Ukraine is the Chinese cargo ship Yi Peng 3 has been caught sabotaging communication lines between Finland - Germany & Sweden - Lithuania.
Sweden has ordered the vessel to sail into Swedish waters to commit a full investigation while the Russians have sent a corvette to observe the whole thing.

Another escalation with a very real chance of everything escalating further.

 

[Ouzo Dan]

French press have been quite vocal over the past couple of days regarding British & French troops being deployed to Ukraine to help shore up the collapsing front line, Lammy has today apparently said there is currently no plan to send British troops, Lammy is a moron so it's impossible to take his word on anything.

Discussions over sending European troops to Ukraine reignited

With the prospect of American disengagement from Kyiv following Donald Trump's return to the White House, Paris and London are not ruling out leading a military coalition in Ukraine.

www.lemonde.fr

Given we've probably got enough ammunition for a month it's not a wise idea to drop 30 odd thousand of our 70,000 soldiers into the meat grinder.

Starmer's at the wheel so who knows...

 

[Stirlingsays]

French press have been quite vocal over the past couple of days regarding British & French troops being deployed to Ukraine to help shore up the collapsing front line, Lammy has today apparently said there is currently no plan to send British troops, Lammy is a moron so it's impossible to take his word on anything.

Discussions over sending European troops to Ukraine reignited

With the prospect of American disengagement from Kyiv following Donald Trump's return to the White House, Paris and London are not ruling out leading a military coalition in Ukraine.

www.lemonde.fr

Given we've probably got enough ammunition for a month it's not a wise idea to drop 30 odd thousand of our 70,000 soldiers into the meat grinder.

Starmer's at the wheel so who knows...

Yeah I heard this too and to me it doesn't sound realistic. However, we should never underestimate just how concerned they are to protect Blackrock's and co investments.

 

[snytaxx]

When the details of the 2022 deal are looked at (and personally I think a lot of the eventual deal will look similar) we see that it essentially involves security guarantees from Europe to basically go to war with Russia if it invades Ukraine.

We already had this deal, it meant nothing to Putin or us for that matter. Why would the same deal again mean anything different?

Now, personally I don't agree with that provision, but that was what was up for discussion in the draft agreements that were ended for whatever combination of reasons.

However what is clear is that if you negotiate a peace you are creating demilitarised zones and building up defences and so on. It means the drip drip of Ukraine losing land stops....Well, it's more than a drip at the moment.

I think your lack of understanding as to what a DMZ is really showa why a peace on Russias term is not possible. A DMZ has to be enforced by someone, I couldn't be the UN as Russia is a member. It would likely need to be NATO. Russia wouldn't not accept this either.

 

[snytaxx]

I could answer all this, and I'm tempted to on some points, but we are just going around in circles.

Let's just see how it goes.

Or the more likely event that you've got no evidence and just want to keep repeating a 'trust me bro' argument without the record that you've been completely called out on it.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Or the more likely event that you've got no evidence and just want to keep repeating a 'trust me bro' argument without the record that you've been completely called out on it.

That's a bit rich don't you think?

You're the guy who was on here months ago in complete denial on how the war was going. I was telling you back then what was happening and how it would go yet all I had in return was argumentation and denialism.....seemingly more of an interest in arguing the toss than in getting to the reality of what's occurring.

I think I've been fair in engaging you here, but it seems that you just mainly want to focus upon emotional arguments justifying everyone along 'Putin bad' lines....and I'm sorry but I think we have seen where emotional arguments get us.

 

[snytaxx]

That's a bit rich don't you think?

You're the guy who was on here months ago in complete denial on how the war was going. I was telling you back then what was happening and how it would go yet all I had in return was argumentation and denialism.....seemingly more of an interest in arguing the toss than in getting to the reality of what's occurring.

I think I've been fair in engaging you here, but it seems that you just mainly want to focus upon emotional arguments justifying everyone along 'Putin bad' lines....and I'm sorry but I think we have seen where emotional arguments get us.

No I don't think that because it's not true.

I consistently backed up my opinions with evidence as to why I made the assertions I did.

If a person is not allowed to call a brutal dictator like Putin bad, what sort of country do you want to live in? Please by all means tell me about all the good things Putin has done for the UK and Europe?

 

[Eaglehamster]

No I don't think that because it's not true.

I consistently backed up my opinions with evidence as to why I made the assertions I did.

If a person is not allowed to call a brutal dictator like Putin bad, what sort of country do you want to live in? Please by all means tell me about all the good things Putin has done for the UK and Europe?

Or Russia.

 

[Stirlingsays]

No I don't think that because it's not true.

I consistently backed up my opinions with evidence as to why I made the assertions I did.

If a person is not allowed to call a brutal dictator like Putin bad, what sort of country do you want to live in? Please by all means tell me about all the good things Putin has done for the UK and Europe?

Who says you can't call Putin bad? No one is restricting your opinion.

Why on earth would Putin's first, second or third concern need to be UK and Europe? He will be entirely judged internally within Russia as a matter for them.

Debate could be had on leaders but this isn't really what I was referring to was it.

No, you came on here with a completely erroneous idea of how the war in Ukraine was going.....I said so at the time and subsequent events have only shown just how wrong you were. Personally I put that down to how emotional you are about the whole thing. For you this isn't about realpolitik and realistic analysis, for you it seems more like a moral play of goodies and baddies and you're all about one side.

It's only now that more honest reporting on how stark the situation is for Ukraine militarily and how completely dependent they are.....and only because it can't be lied about anymore due to harsh realities on the ground.

Have whatever views you want, however what I would suggest is that you seriously review which sources you choose to believe when it comes to war analysis.

 

[snytaxx]

Who says you can't call Putin bad? No one is restricting your opinion.

You get all snowflakey over it and rapidly change the subject and start talking about appeasement.

Why on earth would Putin's first, second or third concern need to be UK and Europe? He will be entirely judged internally within Russia as a matter for them.

Not what I said... I'm talking about his impact on this country and it's people the same people who suddenly don't matter when it comes to echoing Kremlin talking points.

Debate could be had on leaders but this isn't really what I was referring to was it.

No, you came on here with a completely erroneous idea of how the war in Ukraine was going.....I said so at the time and subsequent events have only shown just how wrong you were. Personally I put that down to how emotional you are about the whole thing. For you this isn't about realpolitik and realistic analysis, for you it seems more like a moral play of goodies and baddies and you're all about one side.

Again, pure deflection. I've shown you time and time and time again, the reality of the war in Ukraine. You live in this bizarre world where only Ukraine seems to be affected. Your fantasy arguement that appeasement works relies on Russia essentially having no negative consequences in its war. You're not interested in facts, just a desperation that Russia can win so you can claim 'i told you so'. It's one step away from standing in Croydon high street being disappointed the rapture didn't come when you thought it would.

It's only now that more honest reporting on how stark the situation is for Ukraine militarily and how completely dependent they are.....and only because it can't be lied about anymore due to harsh realities on the ground.

Case in point, of course the situation for Ukraine is bad. No one is saying it isn't. But a peace treaty has to accurately reflect the position of both sides otherwise it's just another stumbling block in your 1938 appeasement fantasy.

Have whatever views you want, however what I would suggest is that you seriously review which sources you choose to believe when it comes to war analysis.

This one made me snort my morning coffee, thanks for that. Coming from the guy who posted a link to an article which systematically demolished his own arguement, then tried to argue against it... Great advice

 

[Stirlingsays]

You get all snowflakey over it and rapidly change the subject and start talking about appeasement.

No, I don't talk about appeasement, it's people like you who talk about appeasement. You use it to justify not ending a war that was always going to stupidly destroy Ukraine. You justify it to press gang men off the streets who don't agree with fighting in the war.

I've never had an issue with those who want to fight Russia fighting Russia. What I do have an issue with is people like you who want others to do the fighting and dying for them.

The Ukrainian people have not been allowed an election and thus choice on this war. They are the people who have been forced to fight a war they can't win with no option. Instead they have had keyboard warriors like yourself urging on a war from a safe environment.

I've fought physically for much of my life, much of the males in my direct family were in the military, I grew up in a rough area, nearly lost my life against a gang, did bouncer work in my thirties, boxed, box five rounds even now in my fifties. I'm no stranger to violence which is why I understand the cost benefit analysis.

If you yourself are willing to travel to Ukraine to fight the Russians then.....while I'd consider you nuts and more importantly wrong.....I would at least respect the commitment.

Not what I said... I'm talking about his impact on this country and it's people the same people who suddenly don't matter when it comes to echoing Kremlin talking points.

'Kermlin talking points'....I regularly hear this low hanging fruit. Ok, so was being against the Iraq war and arguing the madness of that repeating 'Baghdad talking points'?

My brother was a tank commander for that first Gulf war. I was a neo con and all for both of those wars, I was wrong and I learnt my lesson.

Was stating how that war actually made the situation worse plus us poorer both in treasure and lives lost meant you were a Saddam Hussain 'appeaser'? An 'Hussain apologist'? No, it's an absolute nonsense.

What matters is what whether someone's position is sensible or not. Whether it makes sense and accurately reflects reality.

Again, pure deflection. I've shown you time and time and time again, the reality of the war in Ukraine. You live in this bizarre world where only Ukraine seems to be affected. Your fantasy arguement that appeasement works relies on Russia essentially having no negative consequences in its war. You're not interested in facts, just a desperation that Russia can win so you can claim 'i told you so'. It's one step away from standing in Croydon high street being disappointed the rapture didn't come when you thought it would.

Facts? You came on this thread and were wrong about everything. It's actually embarrassing just how wrong you were. What you suggested back then wasn't realistic and was proven the case and even now all you offer the Ukrainian people is more disaster.

I've said many times on this thread, who owns what patch of Slav land is not my business. Ukraine wasn't in Nato and this was an option war. We had no business meddling in Ukraine. The warnings about the war were obvious decades ago.

The reality is that the war was never winnable without risking nuclear death and going full pelt or some kind of Russian economic collapse....which still leaves us with an unstable Russia with nukes. These were huge risks to take and unlikely to work out well and I said so at the time.

The reality is that most of European people aren't interested in body bags over a Russian border country and Europe's politicians know that.....What they got wrong was thinking Russia could be pushed out of Ukraine without full participation and risking WW3......So they decided on 'till the last Ukrainian'.

When it comes to the final analysis in this war and what the final consensus will be, I'm pretty confident that....as we see with the Iraq war..... it won't be the, 'lets go harder in the war' people like you who come out well.

Tell me then, what were the negative consequences for us here in Britain of the 2022 peace treaty being signed? Now there are costs, because we have invested so much....Now there are costs because much of Ukraine having been destroyed and the fact that we will have to help pay for its rebuild. That's on people like you, not me.

Case in point, of course the situation for Ukraine is bad. No one is saying it isn't. But a peace treaty has to accurately reflect the position of both sides otherwise it's just another stumbling block in your 1938 appeasement fantasy.

This one made me snort my morning coffee, thanks for that. Coming from the guy who posted a link to an article which systematically demolished his own arguement, then tried to argue against it... Great advice

It's kind of tragic in a way that you think that the 'peace treaty' is in any way going to reflect what you think it should. As I and others stated at the time the negotiation to stop the war weeks into its start in 2022 was the obvious off ramp.....but no, they listened to people like yourself.

The actual best case that Trump has of reaching a reasonable agreement with Putin is offering him back into the Swift mechanism, lifting sanctions and returning their 300 billion that might get him to stop taking land....I don't know, it's the best option as the Ruble isn't doing well and Russia is in a selling market.

Whatever happens Ukraine is going to be in a mess post war, I wouldn't want to be there.

What the end treaty will reflect....when it happens...because it won't be easy, is a negotiation of the possible or the treaty won't happen. Russia isn't going to stop unless it thinks it's holding onto the donbas and that a treaty isn't used as a recovery period for Ukraine to retake its lands later on.....They aren't stupid.

I've said in an earlier post how I think this plays out, we will see, however the war mongers like yourself lost this war back when the 2023 counter offensive failed. Even if Trump threw all of the US equipment into Ukraine....which is highly unlikely in reality....it doesn't have the professional army in enough numbers to push Russia out. If Russia had to it would announce a general mobilisation (Ukraine has had two but Russia hasn't had one)......It would be difficult for Russia but if it had to it would be done.