Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36139682)

Not going to get into a long post this late, but, for starters:

1. “Total victory” implies a neutral starting point, like kick off in a football match. In such circumstances a score draw might be considered an honourable conclusion given the disparity between the opponents. However in this instance there is no neutral starting point. Ukraine has internationally agreed borders that have been compromised since 2014. “Total victory” is actually just restoration of what is legally recognised. It is not unreasonable, and they should not be pressured into compromise because there is plenty of evidence that Russia would eventually use whatever it continued to hold in Ukraine as the start line for future aggression.

2. Putin’s threats in the event of his red lines being crossed have proven hollow on more than one occasion. We are months on from the point where it was deemed essential to give him an “off ramp”; clearly he doesn’t want one and is no more willing to negotiate a settlement with Zelensky than Zelensky is willing to negotiate with Putin. It has ceased to matter what is essential to Putin. He has crashed the Russian economy, eviscerated its army and most likely set in train his own demise by breaking the unwritten covenant with the Russian people (let us run the country and we’ll leave you alone). He’s hiding from the G20 because he can’t control the narrative that would emerge there and doesn’t like what that narrative might be. The Russian army in Ukraine is a twitching corpse, albeit one still wearing an undetonated suicide vest. They are going to completely lose this war.

In short - there is no circle here to be squared.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36139712)

Then I supposed the element missing from my equation is time. If you are correct, it will just be a matter of time. Russia will collapse, vacate all of Ukraine (incl Crimea), without using any WMDs.

I hope you're right. Just depends on how long that scenario takes to come to fruition.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36139715)

People are forgetting the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where:



This is the lens through which a lot of Ukrainians view their current situation and how the help of the West is not just benevolence. There is an obligation on our part to help ..

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36139715)

People are forgetting the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where:



This is the lens through which a lot of Ukrainians view their current situation and how the help of the West is not just benevolence. There is an obligation on our part to help ..

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36139717)

no one forgot it, it has been quoted in this thread many times.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36139716)

This is the same memorandum that obligated us to help in 2014, how'd that turn out for the Ukranians...

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36139720)

It’s almost as if international agreements are simply maintained for as long as expedient and dismissed once different priorities arise.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36139716)

This is the same memorandum that obligated us to help in 2014, how'd that turn out for the Ukranians...

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36139720)

It’s almost as if international agreements are simply maintained for as long as expedient and dismissed once different priorities arise.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36139717)

no one forgot it, it has been quoted in this thread many times.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36139732)

For our part, Operation Orbital (2015-2022) had trained 22,000 Ukrainian soldiers by the time the invasion began in February. It was a direct response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea. We can argue over how much more we could have done and what difference it might have made, but there’s no room for claiming we did nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...al?wprov=sfti1



See above. It’s almost as if you see the world the way you want to see it regardless of the facts.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36139732)

For our part, Operation Orbital (2015-2022) had trained 22,000 Ukrainian soldiers by the time the invasion began in February. It was a direct response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea. We can argue over how much more we could have done and what difference it might have made, but there’s no room for claiming we did nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...al?wprov=sfti1

See above. It’s almost as if you see the world the way you want to see it regardless of the facts.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36139733)

The argument is not that we did something, but we did not do what was implicit from the agreement. Had we imposed the same sanctions we have now, we may not be here today.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36139733)

Had we imposed the same sanctions we have now, we may not be here today.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36139739)

A creative interpretation of the posts above, I’ll give it that.

---------- Post added at 18:01 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------



For some we can do absolutely no wrong. Events are interpreted in such a way we do exactly the right thing at exactly the right time. Always. Be that intervention or nothing, just pick and choose the past agreements or principles from international law to suit the occasion.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36139742)

Yes, we could have had our energy and cost of living crisis 8 years ago instead. :p:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36139739)

A creative interpretation of the posts above, I’ll give it that.

---------- Post added at 18:01 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------



For some we can do absolutely no wrong. Events are interpreted in such a way we do exactly the right thing at exactly the right time. Always. Be that intervention or nothing, just pick and choose the past agreements or principles from international law to suit the occasion.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36139764)

If we're picking the "past agreements or principles" to justify support for Ukraine, which ones could we "pick from" would allow the opposite stance? If we are just being fickle in our cherry picking of international treaties & laws, I am intrigued to know which ones allow us to walk away from Ukraine and/or sell them short.