Russia has invaded Ukraine

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 Pierre

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.

I don’t think Russia is going to use any WMD in Ukraine. To the extent it might even have been considering it, it has been required to back off by a combination of very specific threats of reprisal by the US and allies, and by extreme diplomatic displeasure from China.

Putin’s ‘off ramp’ now is a domestic one. His military commanders are the ones not just organising but also announcing the withdrawal from Kherson. That’s a pattern that will be repeated as often as necessary so that whenever this comes to its final end it will be the military and not Putin that gets the blame. How successful a strategy that is within Russia remains to be seen.

[ianch99]

People are forgetting the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where:

Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:

1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

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 ..

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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 ..

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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 ..

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

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

I had not seen it before...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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

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

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

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

Indeed, imagine how the tables would have turned if the republicans had done better in the mid terms, putin had bought and paid for them after all...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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

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

Originally Posted by jfman

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

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

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

Some have ...

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by ianch99

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.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Of course, the obverse is equally true for some…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

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

Yes .. when we could afford it.

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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.

Presumably the same ones that allowed the US to withdraw from Afghanistan looting the Afghan central bank. A blind eye here, a nudge to the negotiating table there and bingo. America’s customers in Europe aren’t freezing to death and infrastructure systems hosting refugees can have that pressure released. Prepare for tears of joy going viral as families are reunited, whatever concessions are made deemed a reasonable compromise (whether they are or not) and Halliburton to trouser billions in rebuilding contracts.

Maybe I’m too cynical though.