War in Eastern Europe, what's it good for ....

[Ron]

Is it your understanding that this was ever a serious option?  I mean, sure, if that was a choice, absolutely.

But was that a realistic choice?

ie economic free zone/political neutral state

It was a possibility early on before Euromaidan, even Russia suggested it as a viable option. The Ukraine (western) position was, that was a non starter. After Euromaiden and the "annexing" of Crimea, Russia would have to give up Crimea/Sevastopol for any negotiations to go anywhere, so they went nowhere.


Look cordex, at some point I abandoned my libertarian/classical liberal philosophy that somehow had morphed into supporting empire ie spreading "democracy" during the Bush years. I've gone back to my pre-libertarian roots, a nationalistic focus and a more paleoconservative political philosophy. Turns out Pat Buchannan was correct about a lot of things.

Accusing me of being an apologist for KGB Putin is missing the point. Us pursuing a military alliance and military presence on Russia's border, in their back yard, looks to have been a really bad idea. The fact that KGB Putin rightly views us as the enemy makes the whole policy even dumber. Our whole policy can be boiled down to "lets go to war with Russia".

Your assumption seems to be, we (the west) can do anything we want across the planet as long as it's done under the color of supporting/spreading "democracy" and fweedom.

How about we get our own house in order first? 

[cordex]

As far as an economically free and neutral Ukraine, I absolutely would support that. Now or before. Just like I would support world peace and every child being happy and safe.  Hell, just think of the money we could save if ALL countries were economically free and neutral!

I don’t believe that Russia ever actually intended this.  They absolutely supported a Ukrainian vassal state, but never an independent, neutral Ukraine. They were happy to lie and claim they would - pinky swear - never challenge Ukraine’s borders and all that, but of course those lies were all a means to an end.  I’d be happy to point to specifics, but I’m not sure it is worth my time.  Suffice it to say, Russia has only ever shown support for Ukraine independent of the west and closely aligned with and a puppet of Russia. I’m not saying that is a reason to go to war, I’m saying that you are repeatedly repeating ahistorical and false claims to justify Russia’s aggression and make Putin out to be the reasonable good guy in this conflict instead of taking a stand on the principles you claim are actually important to you. When you relieve Russia of any responsibility because you assert the US started the war because we dared to do something Russia didn’t like, that is well beyond wanting us to clean our own house first or a principled aversion to wars we don’t need to fight.

I think you started with the reasonable, principled position that this war is not one we should fight, but when seeking supporting arguments you were insufficiently critical of positions that aligned with your conclusion and have unintentionally parroted increasingly false and one-sided claims that don’t actually line up with the principles you say you hold.

And speaking of strawmanning, if I’ve said anything along the lines of your claim about doing anything we want as long as it supports democracy, please point to it.

I do see a massive distinction between applying diplomatic influence to try to gain advantage in the world - something every country with the ability does, emphatically including Russia - and invasion. You seem to think otherwise, and didn’t merely assign some blame to us for this war, but claimed we were the primary cause of it.

[Ron]

I don't think Putin is an honest actor at all, as I've stated over and over.

The only thing Putin has said, that I actually really believe, is that Russia has drawn a red line at NATO in Ukraine and Russia's access/control of Sevastopol.

All the rest is just noise. Is this ultimately about land/resources? Of course, that's what war is about, that's probably why Trump floated sharing the booty with Russia recently.

There's been a lot of gunboat diplomacy all along, by both sides.

We're probably in a weaker bargaining position regarding Ukraine now, because increasingly really all that is left is western troops on the ground "officially" fighting Russian troops face to face, war with Russia.

If the goal is Ukraine joining the western economic sphere and military alliance with a restoration of their lost territory then it appears there will be war.

I'm not invested in Ukraine being integrated into the western sphere of influence, and so find the march to war wrong.





 

[cordex]

I don't think Putin is an honest actor at all, as I've stated over and over.

If that is true, then I'm not sure why it is so important to you to push the narrative that Russia and Putin are not responsible for the invasion of Ukraine, and whenever they don't like something about western diplomacy then the outcome is our fault. 

If your intent is not to justify and whitewash Russian aggression by shifting blame to everyone but the invader, then I'm not sure what it is.

Perhaps your intent was to imply that a dishonest actor like Putin was likely to overreact to western diplomatic missteps leading to unnecessary war meaning that the west should have been more careful in how they handled interactions with Ukraine, but if so that is not remotely close to what you've said.

The only thing Putin has said, that I actually really believe, is that Russia has drawn a red line at NATO in Ukraine and Russia's access/control of Sevastopol.

This significantly overstates how likely Ukraine's NATO membership actually was.  Ironically, Russia has strongly pushed the Ukrainian public into supporting NATO membership.  In 2000 only 30% supported NATO membership.  In 2008 when they were denied a Membership Action Plan, 40% of Ukrainians considered NATO to be a threat.  In 2013, 29% of Ukraine considered NATO to be a threat, and 44% considered it to be neither a threat nor protection.  After Russia's invasion of Crimea, a majority started to support joining NATO.  In 2022, 64% supported joining NATO, and in 2023, 89% supported it. 

You pretend this is not a chicken and egg scenario, but Russia has clearly done more for making Ukrainians want NATO membership than any western marketing ever has.

At the time of the invasion of Crimea, Russia had already secured long-term access agreements to Sevastopol.  Could those have been rescinded at some point?  I guess, but not easily or without significant consequence.

All the rest is just noise.

Except it's absolutely not.  Just because something falls outside your very narrow narrative doesn't make it "just noise".

There's been a lot of gunboat diplomacy all along, by both sides.

Can you provide some examples?  If you're using the term "gunboat diplomacy" in its typical sense, I definitely see how it applies to Russia's interactions with its weaker neighbors.  I do not see western gunboat diplomacy against Ukraine at all.

If you're talking about US and Russian saber rattling against each other, then I don't think that's what "gunboat diplomacy" means.

If the goal is Ukraine joining the western economic sphere and military alliance with a restoration of their lost territory then it appears there will be war.

First of all, there already is war, but I assume you meant that there will be war between the West and Russia.  I do not want or support that war.  That does not mean that I need to pretend that Russia isn't the aggressor here.

I personally do not see restoration of lost territory as a likely outcome.  Russia's invasion was far from just or efficient, but their willingness to throw bodies and materiel at the conflict regardless of cost has bought them a lot of occupied territory.  I doubt they will lightly surrender what they've conquered.  As far as military alliance, if Ukraine escapes this war with any kind of sovereignty intact, they are going to need something, and I imagine will be interested in all the alliances and support agreements they can get.

I'm not invested in Ukraine being integrated into the western sphere of influence, and so find the march to war wrong.

I largely agree.

[Ron]

Obviously if a nation invades another nation they are ultimately responsible. 

We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of how evil the regimes of those nations were, they were considered wars of choice. Previously, Operation Desert Shield was determined to be a war of necessity due to Iraq invading a neighbor we considered a friend, there weren't any real diplomatic options. Good or bad we are responsible for our actions ultimately.

Russia has invaded Ukraine and I suspect we (the west) consider their invasion a war of choice. Russia would most likely argue this is a war of necessity. Once again, whether of choice or necessity the buck stops with Russia ultimately.

The question really is what was/is our role in shaping the course of events in Ukraine?

Putins red lines and our arming up Ukraine were forms of gunboat diplomacy were they not? The peaceful veneer of diplomacy was removed and the implied threats of violence were made obvious.   

The whole Ukraine fiasco smells. Sorry you're offended I think some of the stink is on us, not just the Russians. 

When I'm posting my thoughts, it's pretty much being read by my fellow citizens. Ranting about the KGB agent running Russia is preaching to the choir. I'm concerned with how we're being herded into supporting things we shouldn't be supporting (in my opinion).

[HankB]

For a while I thought Ukraine could win this war - with a Ukrainian victory meaning Russia would leave their territory and stop shooting at them from across the border. A Russian victory of course would look very different, with Russia occupying Ukraine and reducing it to a vassal state.

But as more information emerged with the USA and others imposing restrictions on how hard Ukraine was allowed to fight back (e.g., no retaliatory long range missile strikes deep into Russia no matter how deep into Ukraine Russia's missile barrages went) it was clear that there was a lot of diplomatic cr@p going on behind the scenes we weren't privy to. It doesn't help that aside from weapons, the West (especially USA) was funneling a LOT of cash into Ukraine - with little or no accountability.

With recent developments, I'm not seeing a "good" outcome even when the shooting DOES eventually stop.

[K Frame]

"With recent developments, I'm not seeing a "good" outcome even when the shooting DOES eventually stop."

Nope. All the current course of action will do is kick the next Russian "deNazification" of Ukraine down the road a few years.

Let them lick their wounds, get out from under the sanctions, rebuild their military, and rebuild their fantasy that they are a legitimate superpower instead of a legitimate joke.

[cordex]

Obviously if a nation invades another nation they are ultimately responsible. 

I agree, but that seems to directly conflict with your previous statements on responsibility for the war.  A war you explicitly stated we “goaded” Ukraine into, as though Ukraine initiated hostilities and they were ultimately our fault.

Putins red lines and our arming up Ukraine were forms of gunboat diplomacy were they not? The peaceful veneer of diplomacy was removed and the implied threats of violence were made obvious.

Not by any definition of “gunboat diplomacy” I’ve ever heard, no.
Providing defensive arms to a nation at clear risk of yet another invasion from a much larger country does not fit that term at all.

If that is how loosely you define it, then it would seem that any diplomatic disagreement between nations with militaries would be a form of “gunboat diplomacy” because war could always be the final argument.

As far as Putin’s red lines, which ones did we cross?  Ukraine was not close to joining NATO, did not have forward deployed strategic western weapons, Ukraine didn’t try to retake Crimea with military force. 

The only two that you could argue were crossed were western forces training Ukrainians. Putin might argue that was a “significant” NATO presence in Ukraine, although it is hard to argue that a few hundred training troops were that big of a threat to Russia. The other was the Donbas conflict, but considering Russia was actively fanning those flames, it is hard to argue that crossing that line was really a Ukrainian problem, much less that the West pushed it.

One might even make the argument that Russia was intentionally setting up pretexts for a conflict because they wanted to invade no matter what Ukraine and the West did. I mean, if one was actually of a mind that Russia bears any responsibility for their own actions.

The whole Ukraine fiasco smells. Sorry you're offended I think some of the stink is on us, not just the Russians.

Not at all. I have tried to be clear that what offended me was the utter lack of stink you assigned to the Russians.

When I'm posting my thoughts, it's pretty much being read by my fellow citizens. Ranting about the KGB agent running Russia is preaching to the choir. I'm concerned with how we're being herded into supporting things we shouldn't be supporting.

Sure. I guess if you say so then I have to believe you.

[Ron]

US, Germany BLOCKED Russia-Ukraine Peace Deal: Former Israel PM Bennett (2 years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O10svZJ2Fps