War in Ukraine

[silvertop]

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.

I'm glad you didn't. It had turned into a Mattteo transfer thread.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I'm glad ytou didn't. It had turned into a Mattteo transfer thread.

Yep I failed....I should take my own advice and just shut up about it all.....As much use as providing a running commentary as the Titanic sinks.

 

[silvertop]

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

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.

That's probably right. You need someone wholly neutral with absolutely no skin in the game. I nominate...

Chad.

 

[snytaxx]

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.

You literally once argued that Halifax had the correct position in WW2. I don't think you actually think this, but it's symptom that the world is complex and simply opting for a 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' way of viewing life doesn't translate to international politics and grand strategy. Sadly I think you struggle with this nuance.

I've always argued Ukraine should be allowed to end the war on realistic terms. The problem as I continually point out and you continually ignore is that Putin is not interested in a comprising peace, and that without real tangible ability to actually stop Putin from just reinvading (such as NATO membership for Ukraine), any 'peace' is temporary at most and will just lead to worse results for both the west and Ukraine.

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.

Ukrainians begging for supplies to fight for their own independence = people like me wanting other people to do their fighting for them. Pure loony toons.

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. .

This old Kremlin talking point. Demanding an election which you wouldn't even recognise while allowing releasing Russia of it's democratic obligations. Why not allow all of Ukraine and Crimea a free and fair referendum (one not observed by the socialist workers party) as to if they would like be Ukrainian or Russian?

Instead they have had keyboard warriors like yourself urging on a war from a safe environment

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.

I didn't know you were in favour of people dying of cancer... You must be right, as youre on here and not in a lab curing cancer?

Seriously why aren't you trying to cure cancer right now? I can't stand people like you who claim to not want people dying of cancer but aren't actively out curing cancer.

I'm going to stop there because typing that out made me feel so disingenuously stupid. What you wrote should make you feel the same.

'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'?

Whataboutism concedes the point.

If you were a russian I think this point might carry but you're not. Being concerned about your country waging a colonial war of aggression on its neighbours is perfectly valid. Supporting a third party country hostile to your own as it conducts a brutal war and echoing it's talking points as gospel is wrong.

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.

Again, more whataboutism.

The first gulf war? The one which was caused by Iraq deciding it's neighbour Kuwait didn't have right to statehood so he started a brutal and unprovoked invasion. The war which ended in the total victory and liberation of Kuwait with almost no coalition casualties and led to the humbling of a brutal dictator but yet apparently made everything worse? Stirling.... If you had opposed that interest of letting Saddam win and allowing the global supply of oil to be further disrupted I'd have definitely called you an appeaser and an apologist.

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

Right, so to use a Russia is just totally winning argument for a hindsight peace deal when Russia is actually not just totally winning (in the grand scheme of things - it's winning in some ways of course) is not a sensible arguement. Glad we agree.

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.

Could you be more specific?

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.

This is the whole point, eventually it does become your problem. If might equals right and you can have things just because you want them, you end up with a Falklands situation where our interests are harmed. We live in a world where we submit ourselves to law, if you abandon that world it's only us who will lose out.

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.

So much wrong with this arguement. Firstly if your solution is that nuclear blackmail should always be respected. Every country in the world will proliferate. How does that make the world safer?

Secondly Ukraine literally non-proliferated at the request of the west (and Russia) in exchange that it's sovereignty would be respected. To turn your back on this is in itself a decision, a decision with consequences. All of this only increases the likelihood of a nuclear exchange, not decreases it.

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'.

Data and polling says the total opposite, I think people are very concerned about outsourcing their countries energy supply to unstable dictators because of some bonkers net zero target or whatever political drive is in fashion.

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.

They are totally different conflicts which are not directly comparable in hardly any way. To try to compare these is just glib and disingenuous at best. Pure Kremlin guff at worse.

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.

Depends on what the treaty was. As you suggest from your 'evidence'. A total surrender deal (appeasement) would have been highly costly to the UK and would accelerate us to another world war.

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.

If only such a thing existed beyond 'pwease just surwender ukwaine'...

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.

What would Russia compromise on? Not taking more land isn't a compromise....

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

Agreed. Good thing no one is making you.

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.

Refer you to my point above. What will Russia concede on?

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.

Lining up some fresh cope already for when Trump lets you down. Lovely stuff.

Stay warm.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Some interesting points but look we have done this front and back already.

In place of us continually going back and forth I'll post a link to a recent conversation on the war between Scott Horton and Niall Ferguson, who like us two, have differing positions on this disaster in Europe.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think this video here illustrates why it's so important that we work out a deal with Russia that ensures that these situations, where human survival becomes chance....where one person out of three saves all of us.....can't happen.

Perhaps Kennedy negotiating with the Soviets was 'appeasement' to some as both had to give to stop the world coming to an end. I know that plenty of war hawks in both the Soviet Union and US were disappointed as they thought that winning was an actual thing.

Our children need Trump to be successful in ending this cold war with Russia and Brics in general. The direction of travel is disastrous. The light of hope is that Trump....before everything else.....puts American economic interest first and thus open ended wars are bad for business.

Each year more and more states are going to become nuclear capable and this means that wars of regime change become suicide.

 

[Stirlingsays]

We should not be involved in supporting this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1865386542702772711

 

[beak]

Ukraine says it killed senior Russian general who died in scooter blast in Moscow.General is the highest Rank in Russian and American armies,Our senior soldiers are field Marshalls. This evil man used illegal chemicalweapons in Ukraine and was proscribed by the uk .He was head of their Nuclear programme.​

 

[Stirlingsays]

Ukraine says it killed senior Russian general who died in scooter blast in Moscow.General is the highest Rank in Russian and American armies,Our senior soldiers are field Marshalls. This evil man used illegal chemicalweapons in Ukraine and was proscribed by the uk .He was head of their Nuclear programme.​

Both sides have been reported as using chemical weapons.

There is no moral line that one side has passed that the other hasn't.

Such is the nature of war.

 

[Eagleman13]

Igor Kirillov: Russia's chemical weapons chief and mouthpiece killed in Moscow

Kirllov, who has been killed in Moscow, was accused by the West of overseeing the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[steeleye20]

'Trump suggests revoking approval for Ukraine to strike Russia'.​

He's right, but I don't think whoever rules the USA will agree.

What would have been beneficial for the world is if Netenyahu and Zelensky had not been given so much as a brass farthing.

😎

 

[Stirlingsays]

'Trump suggests revoking approval for Ukraine to strike Russia'.​

He's right, but I don't think whoever rules the USA will agree.

What would have been beneficial for the world is if Netenyahu and Zelensky had not been given so much as a brass farthing.

😎

I think when Biden won in 2020 he did it under the idea that much of US policy would be run by the bigwigs of the Democrat party rather than dominated by himself. So essentially unless he felt strongly about something he just ticked whatever they wanted. When it comes to foreign policy that's essentially the State department and Blinken.....though if you look at the State department it's been heavily involved in Ukraine for about twenty years.

I think Trump will largely be the same by the way.....I think he will try to close the Ukraine war down but I don't really think he can. However, Trump's State department will have a lot of say in what happens.

I think a lot of what we are seeing now is both Ukraine, Europe and Biden's administration trying to figure out how to make things as difficult as possible for Trump to pursue a different route.

 

[beak]

Both sides have been reported as using chemical weapons.

There is no moral line that one side has passed that the other hasn't.

Such is the nature of war.

My point was he is or was a nasty bar steward.

 

[ASCPFC]

My point was he is or was a nasty bar steward.

I don't care that he's dead either. That's life in the military - and death. Generals always reckon they're exempt but clearly not here.

 

[Stirlingsays]

My point was he is or was a nasty bar steward.

If you are promoting nice guys as your generals it isn't going to work, you want competence.

If you know where to look for footage bar stewards are the default in this war.

Some of the guys doing the droning are sick.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

I don't see Trump being committed in any way to Ukraine. I see him wanting a quick settlement, with maybe some contracts to the USA for rebuilding. Then there is China's manufacturing, undercutting USA prices. Once Trump gets an idea of outcomes for the USA, he might spare some time giving out some payback to those who've troubled him.
I don't really see Trump as being pivotal to negotiations in an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. I do see him as being instrumental in bringing the two sides to the table by cutting military supplies to Ukraine and opening trade doors with Russia

 

[Stirlingsays]

I don't see Trump being committed in any way to Ukraine. I see him wanting a quick settlement, with maybe some contracts to the USA for rebuilding. Then there is China's manufacturing, undercutting USA prices. Once Trump gets an idea of outcomes for the USA, he might spare some time giving out some payback to those who've troubled him.
I don't really see Trump as being pivotal to negotiations in an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. I do see him as being instrumental in bringing the two sides to the table by cutting military supplies to Ukraine and opening trade doors with Russia

We'll see I guess.

In short I think US and Europe policy has been to weaken Russia as much as possible economically and militarily and I think in turn Russia's policy will be to weaken Ukraine and Europe in the same way.

Anyone sensible would have shut this down in 22.

 

[ASCPFC]

We'll see I guess.

In short I think US and Europe policy has been to weaken Russia as much as possible economically and militarily and I think in turn Russia's policy will be to weaken Ukraine and Europe in the same way.

Anyone sensible would have shut this down in 22.

The way I see it, there were only two ways to shut this down immediately. One was immediately send large amount of Western/ NATO troops - a line in the sand that wouldn't have been worth it to Putin, in my opinion. Sounds quite unlikely with how pathetic all of our governments and armed forces are - and how, as usual, we well overrated Russian forces.
The other would have been to immediately capitulate, or to force Ukraine to capitulate (oh dear, Zelensky had an accident, look at this shiny politician the EU and Putin says is fine).
I struggle to think either option was really feasible. Obviously, something could still happen to Zelensky but it will be just an unfortunate accident.
This has followed classic Cold War proxy war doctrines - which it always was going to. Both sides need a way to save face when this ends. And then they can say how they actually won - or just ignore it aka Afghanistan or Vietnam.

 

[Daddyorc]

Ukraine says it killed senior Russian general who died in scooter blast in Moscow.General is the highest Rank in Russian and American armies,Our senior soldiers are field Marshalls. This evil man used illegal chemicalweapons in Ukraine and was proscribed by the uk .He was head of their Nuclear programme.​

Ha Ha Ha Ha!

In your face Putin! I hope you shed a tear (not that you care about your own people, only your supposed legacy).

 

[ASCPFC]

Ha Ha Ha Ha!

In your face Putin! I hope you shed a tear (not that you care about your own people, only your supposed legacy).

When I heard he was dead, my first thought was that it was Putin.