American Politics

[shionoro]

None of those countries should be joining NATO and Russia will not be "defeated completely" by the end of the month. The response to Russia's invasion was always going to be about attrition and appeasement (at some point). Doing the thing that caused Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place in more countries is an admission that you want more of what we're seeing in Ukraine in those countries as well, as well as the very real possibility of nuclear conflict. I simply don't get how this insistence on NATO expansionism remains in the face of what we're seeing in Ukraine, it's simply insane to me.

I dont think this will end with appeasement. FInland and sweden will definitely join Nato. There is absolutely no way around that now.
And the countries i mentioned should do so in time, too. The idea that nato enlargement caused Russia to attack is a complete hoax perpetuated by russian propaganda and really nothing else. Russia was always going to try to take the land they see as theirs back. Had nato not pushed against it, it would have happened faster. Had nato pushed harder and accepted ukraine into their ranks back then, russia would not have been able to attack it.

It is insane by now to think that there is any downside to joining Nato if you are threatened by russia. If you play nice like ukraine, give away your nuclear weapons and do not join nato you get attacked viciously. If you do like the baltics did and join nato, you are safe. That is what we see. That is reality.

And this conflict needs to end with a complete russian defeat. That does not need to happen by the end of the month, but it needs to happen. Russia needs to be defeated on the battlefield and sent packing form at least every region ukraine held before the invasion. The EU ascension will start soon and then the question of Nato really does not matter a lot anymore because EU states have a similar defense pact. If Russia attacks a EU state, other EU states do have the obligation to help. In any case, this cannot end without other countries giving Ukraine serious safety assurances that they are going to step in if russia ever attacks again, no matter how these assurances will be made. The easiest way would be if it joins nato. If it just joins EU for the optics, fine by me, but there needs to be something in writing about that.

 

[M3J]

Maybe Putin just needs a good mother

 

[xi0]

I dont think this will end with appeasement. FInland and sweden will definitely join Nato. There is absolutely no way around that now.
And the countries i mentioned should do so in time, too. The idea that nato enlargement caused Russia to attack is a complete hoax perpetuated by russian propaganda and really nothing else. Russia was always going to try to take the land they see as theirs back. Had nato not pushed against it, it would have happened faster. Had nato pushed harder and accepted ukraine into their ranks back then, russia would not have been able to attack it.

It is insane by now to think that there is any downside to joining Nato if you are threatened by russia. If you play nice like ukraine, give away your nuclear weapons and do not join nato you get attacked viciously. If you do like the baltics did and join nato, you are safe. That is what we see. That is reality.

And this conflict needs to end with a complete russian defeat. That does not need to happen by the end of the month, but it needs to happen. Russia needs to be defeated on the battlefield and sent packing form at least every region ukraine held before the invasion. The EU ascension will start soon and then the question of Nato really does not matter a lot anymore because EU states have a similar defense pact. If Russia attacks a EU state, other EU states do have the obligation to help. In any case, this cannot end without other countries giving Ukraine serious safety assurances that they are going to step in if russia ever attacks again, no matter how these assurances will be made. The easiest way would be if it joins nato. If it just joins EU for the optics, fine by me, but there needs to be something in writing about that.

Barring Putin being out of the picture and/or the country completely folding, yes, the conclusion to this conflict will end in appeasement. That is what negotiations involve, especially when one of the countries has nukes.

Any former Eastern bloc countries that joined NATO mostly did so when Russia was at it's weakest state.

Ukraine should get security assurances under certain conditions, but them joining NATO is out of the question IMO and always should have been. At least as long as NATO has not included Russia as well.

 

[kkck]

Ukraine joining nato was out of question. it didn't meet the requirements to join before russia invaded and in the months or weeks leading up to the invasion ukraine said it wasn't joining. This is about ukraine growing closer to the EU and not the "russian world"...

 

[shionoro]

Barring Putin being out of the picture and/or the country completely folding, yes, the conclusion to this conflict will end in appeasement. That is what negotiations involve, especially when one of the countries has nukes.

Any former Eastern bloc countries that joined NATO mostly did so when Russia was at it's weakest state.

Ukraine should get security assurances under certain conditions, but them joining NATO is out of the question IMO and always should have been. At least as long as NATO has not included Russia as well.

That is not what appeasement means. Appeasement means that you build russia a bridge to save face. That is not going to happen. By now, both US and EU want to have Russia being a clear loser for everyone to see after this. And that means they will not gain any land and be thrown out of there. That is why weapons are delivered to Ukraine right now, and seriou weapons at that. Some countries still balk at tanks and planes, but by now they are getting material to shoot down missiles and planes, or to destroy warships.
Russia cannot sustain this invasion for very long. With the supplies from the west, Ukraine can. And thus this can very well end with russian military having to run away in defeat, much like they had to in kyiv.

And it should. And if Ukraine joins EU (and that is what will probably happen), that directly means that other EU states have to defend it, they will be untouchable for Russia. Some halfassed assurances "under certain conditions" won't cut it here. It needs to be very clear that russia will never step foot on ukrainian territory again or nato steps in.

Ukraine joining nato was out of question. it didn't meet the requirements to join before russia invaded and in the months or weeks leading up to the invasion ukraine said it wasn't joining. This is about ukraine growing closer to the EU and not the "russian world"...

That is exactly right. Even the crimea thing was about ukrainian EU ascension. THis was always about Ukraine wanting to leave the russian influence and not about russian safety.

 

[Sanity Check]

Ukraine joining nato was out of question. it didn't meet the requirements to join before russia invaded and in the months or weeks leading up to the invasion ukraine said it wasn't joining. This is about ukraine growing closer to the EU and not the "russian world"...

...

Hillary Clinton tells Ukraine door to NATO open

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Ukraine on Friday that the door to joining NATO remained open even though its new leadership has abandoned alliance membership as a long-term goal.

www.reuters.com

That is from 2010.

 

[shionoro]

I can understand why nato did not take ukraine back then because it was a different country back then. But from a security viewpoint, we would have done well to accept them as it would have prevented this situation.

 

[xi0]

That is not what appeasement means. Appeasement means that you build russia a bridge to save face. That is not going to happen. By now, both US and EU want to have Russia being a clear loser for everyone to see after this. And that means they will not gain any land and be thrown out of there. That is why weapons are delivered to Ukraine right now, and seriou weapons at that. Some countries still balk at tanks and planes, but by now they are getting material to shoot down missiles and planes, or to destroy warships.
Russia cannot sustain this invasion for very long. With the supplies from the west, Ukraine can. And thus this can very well end with russian military having to run away in defeat, much like they had to in kyiv.

Well... how is that different than what I said? The point would be to give concessions to end the conflict. That means giving Russia an out, and that would involve assurances from Ukraine and the West. That is what appeasement is. Neither party is ending this conflict with a surrender, so there is no scenario where one side is "defeated" (barring what I mentioned before).

What the US and the EU wants is irrelevant when it comes to negotiating a peace where Russia ends it's invasion.

And it should. And if Ukraine joins EU (and that is what will probably happen), that directly means that other EU states have to defend it, they will be untouchable for Russia. Some halfassed assurances "under certain conditions" won't cut it here. It needs to be very clear that russia will never step foot on ukrainian territory again or nato steps in.

The CDSP is not on the level of Article V of NATO, that's why EU is being talked about in lieu of NATO.

If they want those kinds of assurances with NATO "stepping in", then they need to join NATO... which isn't on the table. And if you want Russia to leave any time soon, it never will be on the table.

 

[shionoro]

Well... how is that different than what I said? The point would be to give concessions to end the conflict. That means giving Russia an out, and that would involve assurances from Ukraine and the West. That is what appeasement is. Neither party is ending this conflict with a surrender, so there is no scenario where one side is "defeated" (barring what I mentioned before).

What the US and the EU wants is irrelevant when it comes to negotiating a peace where Russia ends it's invasion.

That is exactly what we should not do and what i think wont be done. There won't be concessions for Russia. Russia is supposed to lose. Ukraine might stop short of attacking crimea, but that does not mean they concede it. If they drive russia out by military force, then there is not going to be any kind of significant concession. And that looks increasingly likely.

Appeasement is something different anyway. Appeasement means giving an aggressive force something so they are less aggressive, for example if ukraine had preemtively given concessions before russia attacked. That is different from a peace negotiation. Appeasement means one party concedes something for the other to stop threats, negotiation means that both parties gain something they did not want to give up.

And what the EU and US want is very relevant here. If the EU and US see this through to the end, russia cannot win. If they stop support for ukraine, it does.

The CDSP is not on the level of Article V of NATO, that's why EU is being talked about in lieu of NATO.

If they want those kinds of assurances with NATO "stepping in", then they need to join NATO... which isn't on the table. And if you want Russia to leave any time soon, it never will be on the table.

Russia is not going to leave out of their own free will, they will be made to leave. This is not their choice, they cannot support this kind of war for a very long time if Nato supports ukraine even more. And that is exactly what we should do.
The idea that you can concede something to russia for them to play nice is absurd by now. They have to be driven out, any type of concession just spurs them on.

 

[Sanity Check]

Interesting.

 

[McNuss]

We made it to your news...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/04/08/konrad-adenauer-spying-german-watergate/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

To give you a bit of context, Adenauer was an asshole. Like...you can't even imagine. He would make Trump sound like children's television, you don't even really know how rude and nasty someone can get in politics.

Still, as the father of the German Basic Law, our constitution, he obviously is largely revered throughout our country. And that's despite it was already revealed in 2017 that he spied on the later Chancellor Brandt, and there also always have been accusations he faked the first German election with help from the CIA to prevent the Social Democrat (which still somewhat meant socialist in that time period) and concentration camp survivor Kurt Schumacher from winning.

 

[xi0]

That is exactly what we should not do and what i think wont be done. There won't be concessions for Russia. Russia is supposed to lose. Ukraine might stop short of attacking crimea, but that does not mean they concede it. If they drive russia out by military force, then there is not going to be any kind of significant concession. And that looks increasingly likely.

Appeasement is something different anyway. Appeasement means giving an aggressive force something so they are less aggressive, for example if ukraine had preemtively given concessions before russia attacked. That is different from a peace negotiation. Appeasement means one party concedes something for the other to stop threats, negotiation means that both parties gain something they did not want to give up.

And what the EU and US want is very relevant here. If the EU and US see this through to the end, russia cannot win. If they stop support for ukraine, it does.

That is what should be done and what will happen, unless you think Putin is willing to destroy Russia from within in order to occupy Ukraine. I haven't seen any serious talk about invading Crimea, so I don't know why you'd think that's on the table.

"Appeasement means giving an aggressive force something so they are less aggressive" - yes, that is what will happen in order for Russia to be less aggressive and best case scenario he'll leave territory they didn't occupy before this invasion. I did not say Ukraine would not gain anything in negotiations, but what bargaining chip do they have, other than concessions?

I didn't suggest stopping support for Ukraine, I said security assurances that are NATO-esque should be conditional. If Ukraine goes on an offensive campaign and uses aide money and weapons to strike within Russia's borders, I don't think they should be supported in the same way. If Zelenskyy is deposed and a Far-Right Ultra-Nationalist/Fascist regime seizes power (a very real possibility if he's seen as being "weak" towards Russia), then the country should receive no support IMO. If the other thing happens and a Russia-friendly regime takes his place, obviously support wouldn't be relevant either.

It is only relevant as far as what it takes to end this conflict. PR will be done either way, but seeing Russia "lose" or be "defeated" is not as important as them actually leaving. No one but India or China sees what Russia is doing as "just", there is no other PR considerations necessary.

Russia is not going to leave out of their own free will, they will be made to leave. This is not their choice, they cannot support this kind of war for a very long time if Nato supports ukraine even more. And that is exactly what we should do.
The idea that you can concede something to russia for them to play nice is absurd by now. They have to be driven out, any type of concession just spurs them on.

Short of Putin bankrupting his country and the entire government collapsing, Russia will choose to leave because the conditions offered during a peace negotiations are better than prolonging the conflict.

"Conceding" LPR and DPR in order for the war to end is absolutely something that should be considered. Those places have been controlled by pro-Russia elements for 8 years now and already plan to hold referendums to join Russia.

 

[shionoro]

hat is what should be done and what will happen, unless you think Putin is willing to destroy Russia from within in order to occupy Ukraine. I haven't seen any serious talk about invading Crimea, so I don't know why you'd think that's on the table.

"Appeasement means giving an aggressive force something so they are less aggressive" - yes, that is what will happen in order for Russia to be less aggressive and best case scenario he'll leave territory they didn't occupy before this invasion. I did not say Ukraine would not gain anything in negotiations, but what bargaining chip do they have, other than concessions?

I didn't suggest stopping support for Ukraine, I said security assurances that are NATO-esque should be conditional. If Ukraine goes on an offensive campaign and uses aide money and weapons to strike within Russia's borders, I don't think they should be supported in the same way. If Zelenskyy is deposed and a Far-Right Ultra-Nationalist/Fascist regime seizes power (a very real possibility if he's seen as being "weak" towards Russia), then the country should receive no support IMO. If the other thing happens and a Russia-friendly regime takes his place, obviously support wouldn't be relevant either.

It is only relevant as far as what it takes to end this conflict. PR will be done either way, but seeing Russia "lose" or be "defeated" is not as important as them actually leaving. No one but India or China sees what Russia is doing as "just", there is no other PR considerations necessary.

It is not about PR, it is about stopping it from happening again. If Russia leaves without outright losing, they are going to do it again. The next plan if Nato would do what you suggest would be to see through that a fascist government (or ideally a russia friendly one) takes hold in Ukraine so they can invade again with the nice loophole they were left with.
The whole idea of Ukraine being governed by a fascist government seems pretty absurd to me. Fascists are a far less relevant faction in ukraine's parliament than in the american house. Fascists in Ukraine had one seat last election. Nationalism is relevant in Ukraine, but quite honestly, before there is a fascist revolution in ukraine, there is one in america.

Short of Putin bankrupting his country and the entire government collapsing, Russia will choose to leave because the conditions offered during a peace negotiations are better than prolonging the conflict.

"Conceding" LPR and DPR in order for the war to end is absolutely something that should be considered. Those places have been controlled by pro-Russia elements for 8 years now and already plan to hold referendums to join Russia.

If Ukraine sends Russia packing and holds its onslaught on Donbass, there is zero reason to concede crimea or any other territory. If anything, Russia needs to concede these to get out of having to pay reparations to Ukraine.
You don't get to keep territories if you lose a war. At some point, these terrirtories will be too costly for Russia to defend. A consensus can be a very strong autonomy of these regions so they can mostly govern themselves (like crimea could before the russian invasion), but Ukraine has no reason to concede these regions. That train is long gone. If russia cannot defeat ukraine and has to go home at some point, Ukraine has no reason to give them up. They belong to Ukraine.

 

[xi0]

It is not about PR, it is about stopping it from happening again. If Russia leaves without outright losing, they are going to do it again. The next plan if Nato would do what you suggest would be to see through that a fascist government (or ideally a russia friendly one) takes hold in Ukraine so they can invade again with the nice loophole they were left with.
The whole idea of Ukraine being governed by a fascist government seems pretty absurd to me. Fascists are a far less relevant faction in ukraine's parliament than in the american house. Fascists in Ukraine had one seat last election. Nationalism is relevant in Ukraine, but quite honestly, before there is a fascist revolution in ukraine, there is one in america.

Okay, then it's about propaganda, better? Nothing anyone did stopped Russia from invading Ukraine, so ignoring specific context for a moment, what would stop them from doing the same to other former Eastern Bloc countries not in NATO? I don't have an answer to that. But I fail to see what the West can do to affect that besides what they've done already.

It was closer to absurd pre-invasion, but one of the universal givens is that foreign invasions breed nationalism and reactionaries have influence as a result. Extreme nationalism in response to an invasion and occupation breeds fascism, especially when it already exists politicially and the national guard is full of neonazis. If Zelenskyy is not deemed "tough" enough, then they will absolutely be a threat to him, that is undoubtable. And as a side effect of our lethal aide, there are hundreds of thousands of our firearms and munitions that they'll be outfitted with. That is a very real danger, and regarding it as absurd is naive IMO.

If Ukraine sends Russia packing and holds its onslaught on Donbass, there is zero reason to concede crimea or any other territory. If anything, Russia needs to concede these to get out of having to pay reparations to Ukraine.
You don't get to keep territories if you lose a war. At some point, these terrirtories will be too costly for Russia to defend. A consensus can be a very strong autonomy of these regions so they can mostly govern themselves (like crimea could before the russian invasion), but Ukraine has no reason to concede these regions. That train is long gone. If russia cannot defeat ukraine and has to go home at some point, Ukraine has no reason to give them up. They belong to Ukraine.

Crimea isn't Ukraine's to concede. Unless something drastically changes with Russia, the notion that that would be on the table at all seems like wishful thinking (and not in a good way, the majority in Crimea do not want to be under Ukrainian administration).

Did the US "lose a war" in Afghanistan and Iraq? They left and no longer occupy it. Your fixation on Russia needing to be humbled, completely defeated and embarrassed is the kind of attitude that will prolong this conflict and cost more lives. It does not matter whether it's "just" or not since they are at fault for this war happening, what matters is that it ends.

 

[McNuss]

"Conceding" LPR and DPR in order for the war to end is absolutely something that should be considered. Those places have been controlled by pro-Russia elements for 8 years now and already plan to hold referendums to join Russia.

No. That would be the equivalent of giving up anything that held our world together since the end of WWII. You can't just sack parts of your neighbor country like that.

LPR and DPR have no right to exist whatsoever. A quick look into their leadership reveals that they are either Nazis or Russian secret agents, and they get replaced all the time because obviously some wannabes don't get to be an actual part of Putin's mafia.

The most realistic scenario for an end is that there will be no true end. No conflict in the past WWII era ever ended well. Lines will freeze, until conflict breaks out again.

Erdogan will engineer a broken truce somewhere down the line which is bad too but he is actually the best hope the West has. Not only does he control access to the Black Sea, Russia also has a huge turkic population (and they are the majority in Kazakhstan). Turkey is also a popular holiday location for Russians. I think Erdogan holds more influence on the Russian population than western leaders and he is not democratic. That's the way out Putin will abuse, and not just for once. I think we will see this repeating quite a few more times.

It will probably coincide exactly with Putin having a secure land route to crimea and secured most of Donbass. Then suddenly talks will work out. Ukraine will not lose its will to fight but it cannot keep up taking damage without being able to catch a breath.

 

[xi0]

No. That would be the equivalent of giving up anything that held our world together since the end of WWII. You can't just sack parts of your neighbor country like that.

LPR and DPR have no right to exist whatsoever. A quick look into their leadership reveals that they are either Nazis or Russian secret agents, and they get replaced all the time because obviously some wannabes don't get to be an actual part of Putin's mafia.

It's not "just sack", conflict has been happening in that region due to separatists for 10 years or so.

Their right to exist remains to be seen IMO. The quality or lack thereof of their leadership isn't really relevant IMO, Azov is quite prominent in that region as well. We don't really need an unsavoriness competition there.

The most realistic scenario for an end is that there will be no true end. No conflict in the past WWII era ever ended well. Lines will freeze, until conflict breaks out again.

Erdogan will engineer a broken truce somewhere down the line which is bad too but he is actually the best hope the West has. Not only does he control access to the Black Sea, Russia also has a huge turkic population (and they are the majority in Kazakhstan). Turkey is also a popular holiday location for Russians. I think Erdogan holds more influence on the Russian population than western leaders and he is not democratic. That's the way out Putin will abuse, and not just for once. I think we will see this repeating quite a few more times.

It will probably coincide exactly with Putin having a secure land route to crimea and secured most of Donbass. Then suddenly talks will work out. Ukraine will not lose its will to fight but it cannot keep up taking damage without being able to catch a breath.

Erdogan is adept at playing both sides, but peace being in his hands is not very promising to me.

If you see him securing Donbass then what is the issue you have with not seeing LPR/DPR?

 

[kkck]

It is not about PR, it is about stopping it from happening again. If Russia leaves without outright losing, they are going to do it again. The next plan if Nato would do what you suggest would be to see through that a fascist government (or ideally a russia friendly one) takes hold in Ukraine so they can invade again with the nice loophole they were left with.
The whole idea of Ukraine being governed by a fascist government seems pretty absurd to me. Fascists are a far less relevant faction in ukraine's parliament than in the american house. Fascists in Ukraine had one seat last election. Nationalism is relevant in Ukraine, but quite honestly, before there is a fascist revolution in ukraine, there is one in america.

To be fair, russia losing this conflict outright won't necessarily prevent it from happening again. Or at least I don't see how this would be a guarantee of such a thing. Will putin stay in power in this scenario? Does he get replaced by someone worst? Will russia continue to regard ukraine as part of the russian world? How will defeat affect russia's "security concerns"? In the extraordinary scenario of an ukranian victory I don't think any of these questions has a clear answer.

 

[xi0]

Yet another chapter in the book of Conservative Self-Owns.

 

[Sanity Check]

Elon Musk ‘Serious’ About Potentially Turning Twitter’s Headquarters Into ‘Homeless Shelter’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Elon Musk ‘Serious’ About Potentially Turning Twitter’s Headquarters Into ‘Homeless Shelter’

 

[xi0]

Feckless ghouls laughing at the world's richest man treating homeless people as an object to own the libs with. How endearing.

Obviously he didn't need to buy all of that stock to start a homeless shelter, if he's super serious about doing it. But of course we all know he isn't.