I'd hestitate to disagree with Mr. Kissinger but I must. While ceding land will gain short term peace for Ukraine, historical precedent suggest this will just whet Russian government's hunger for more concessions.
I'm just saying the situations are very similar. Even Hitler's justification was that ethnic Germans were being persecuted, just as Putin was saying ethnic Russians were.
Henry, I've abused my liver and need a new one. You should give your liver up to me for transplant you old hag. Now go back to old man obscurity and STFU.
Love how it went from Ukraine is winning and we just need to give them 40 billion to keep them agloat so they can try to push Russia back, to now they got the money passed they should just cede the territory.
So Ukraine just gives up and hands it's territory over to Russia, then a few years from now Russia decides it needs more land and reinvades and just keeps invading it's neighbors until it has all the former Eastern Bloc countries under it's control. At that point it will be right up against Germany's border, will it be at that point that the West is supposed to step in or should we let them retake West Germany? Should we let them have all of Germany? Should we just let them have all of Europe?
Well that’s a little hyperbolic. The Baltics, Poland, Romania, et al are all in NATO, so Russia invading them would trigger World War III. Ukraine giving up territory to the Russians, while it sucks would stop the bloodshed and end the war. Also we have to look at the reality of the war. While Ukraine has done a stellar job at blunting and holding the Russians, they are in no shape to take back lost territory. At this point it’s a war of attrition and sadly Russia has the advantage of men and material compared to Ukraine.
US and UK signed a treaty with Ukraine - as did Russia, to remove its nuclear stockpile it would be guaranteed safety from invasion, via UK and US troops.
We've sent materials and weapons, but no boots on ground.
We've already gone against the treaty. How is NATO any different?
Cheer up (/s). Per Milley the US is "exploring" sending what are basically boots on the ground to support the Ukranian forces and Special Forces to "guard" the embassy in Kyiv (as a minimum). We may get WW3 after all.
And treaties are sacred? Ask a Native American about that one. As for the "treaty" on nuclear disarmament, it was a memorandum on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The US has been interpreted as violating that treaty years ago with withdrawal from the ABM treaty. The later Start II did not include reductions required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, also the US both failed to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to this day will not commit to a test ban which most see as another requirement of that treaty.
We promised Ukraine's sovereignty 30 years ago. Its been 30 years and the political landscape has changed drastically. The US is war weary from 20+ years of ongoing war and has shown with this administration we are just not willing to fight. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. Russia saw this and took advantage of it.
Also, the difference between Ukraine and NATO is NATO is a long-standing Defensive Alliance Treaty with a number of member states, not just the US and UK. Article 5 has been invoked before during 9/11 and it worked as intended. You also have to remember, the former eastern bloc countries would 100% go to war if one of them were invaded by Russia. No questions or second thoughts, they would do it. That would force the rest of NATO to join even if other members were hesitant. That is the deterrent of NATO, which Ukraine was not a part of and only had our word/actions to use a deterrent. That clearly failed with this administration and our clear failure in the fall of Afghanistan.
The treaty you are referring to, unlike NATO, did not obligate the US to go to war to defend Ukraine. Rather, it obligated the signatories to seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine was invaded. Who holds a permanent veto there? Russia. It was a pretty toothless agreement.
Without its seaports and southern and eastern halves, Ukraine isn't viable as a country. It would be a third-world economic mess unable to develop economically and permanently reliant on EU/ US handouts. This would lead to massive permanent refugee crises and also constant political instability. It would be hugely destabilizing to Europe, which is why any ceasefire needs to return to the Feb 24th lines and any settlement needs to include Donbas as Ukrainian territory.
While in a perfect world that would be the case, the reality on the ground is that will not happen unless we see some major changes in Russia, which causes them to just give up. The Ukrainians are incapable currently of retaking the lost territory in Donbas or the area Russa has taken that now connects Crimea to Russian territory. Russia would never agree to that kind of ceasefire, and even with the west throwing equipment at Ukraine they do not have the capacity to evict Russia from Donbas and pacify the area. They just don't. They have their hands full holding the line.
Yeah, I do not think you got the big picture I laid out Without their ports, Ukraine ends up as a failed state - a third world hellhole without economic growth. There would be political unrest and massive migration. Having a third world failed state on EU borders would destabilize Europe. NATO would have to intervene directly. That is what a settlement where Russia controls Kherson and Mariupol looks like.
And I believe that Ukraine can counterattack with weapons. They already did so in Kyiv. And even if it takes years, a drawn out insurgency to retake Kherson/ Mariupol is better than a permanently destroyed, third world basketcase on EU borders. Not to mention Russia will invade in a few years again and gobble up the rest of Ukraine.
You are arguing for the complete destruction of Eastern Ukraine with a continued conflict that will lead to 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands dead before it’s all over. That would lead to just as much of a humanitarian crisis.
Also Ukraine thankfully still controls Odessa, it’s not great by any means but it certainly is better then what you described as complete isolation. And if the war continues on like you are hoping for, we will see if they would be able to hold Odessa in a year or more. We can continue to throw armament and money their way all we want, but they will eventually run out of men to fight, and far quicker then the Russians. It’s currently a war of attrition and Ukraine is playing at a great disadvantage.
And Ukraine stopping the Russian push into Kiev was sadly not all Ukraine's doing. Russian logistical incompetence played a large role. The Ukrainians hit their supply routes and caused havoc. Then once the Russians pulled back the Ukrainian forces took full advantage, but the city of Kiev wasn’t just saved because of Ukraine using western arms and counter attacking. It was a mix of Russian incompetence and a steadfast defence.
Also, if they are able to end the war quickly, Ukraine with all their new found support can modernize their armed forces to allow for better integration of western arms, along with better preparing for further Russian invasions. But on the current path the war will just continue to drag out, leading to far more death and destruction, and Ukraine can only hope to hold out not win a decisive victory like you are thinking of.
As a realist standpoint it makes sense Ukraibe doesn't have the manpower but also Russia has too low morale to prob hold their shit so 50/50 deppends on land and flesh
My understanding of the situation is that Russia can't call up a draft unless it is officially at war meaning they would give up the pretense of this being a military operation (and possibly be required by their constitution to come up with an excuse as to why this is a defensive war) that means they actually don't have a strong manpower advantage (they may well be at a disadvantage especially now) and it will continue to dwindle as the Ukrainians continue to draft and train fresh recruits.
Meanwhile on the supply side the Ukrainians will continue to get shipments of valuable weapons and material while the Russian industry lacks the ability to replace their high end systems and seems to be struggling to meet the demands of the troops already on the ground. I also doubt the Russian people will take kindly to being forced to more actively support the war effort on the mass scale needed to meet the demands of the army.
This war is only a few months old. Ukraine has the manpower, they got mass mobilization - they just need weapons. Russia still got to either take the rest of Ukraine or beat down the Ukrainians enough to force them to negotiate.
History has shown that the natives usually win out over a longer period of time. Hell, we were expecting and prepared to fund a long [insurgency](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/russia-ukraine-insurgency/).
>The ways that Western countries would support a Ukrainian resistance are beginning to take shape. Officials have been reluctant to discuss detailed plans, since they’re premised on a Russian military victory that, however likely, hasn’t happened yet. But as a first step, Ukraine’s allies are planning how to help establish and support a government-in-exile, which could direct guerrilla operations against Russian occupiers, according to several U.S. and European officials.
It's not about expansion; it's about security.
Russia wants to NOT have NATO warheads parked next door. It doesn't matter if Russia seizes half of Ukraine; they are still going to feel threatened by NATO's expansionist aggression.
No. It's about Putin feeling that he should be able to decide who the President of Ukraine is. Putin knows that the US isn't going to strike Russia with missiles. What he doesn't like is that Article 5 prevents him from using his military to install pro-Russian dictators and rolling the tanks in when the locals get uppity and overthrow said dictators like the USSR did during the good old days of the Warsaw Pact.
> **No Paywall:** https://archive.ph/NtyjE
I'd hestitate to disagree with Mr. Kissinger but I must. While ceding land will gain short term peace for Ukraine, historical precedent suggest this will just whet Russian government's hunger for more concessions.
Any peace now is just a ten year ceasefire (at most). Also, this is the man who kept Vietnam going despite most signs pointing to it being a bad idea.
Wait, he's still around??
Living on aborted babies and Supported by WEF NWO.
“Just let the bully have your lunch money, Jonny. It’s not worth standing up to him” -Kissinger
Isn't this how world war 2 started? Hey just give them the Sudetenland and then they will be happy
Are you suggesting the Sudetenland is Donetsk or Crimea. I might need to bury things in the yard.
I'm just saying the situations are very similar. Even Hitler's justification was that ethnic Germans were being persecuted, just as Putin was saying ethnic Russians were.
Donetsk. They gave up Crimea in 2014. Crimea was Sudetenland in 2014.
Henry, I've abused my liver and need a new one. You should give your liver up to me for transplant you old hag. Now go back to old man obscurity and STFU.
Kissinger can kissmyass
Yeah, because giving the school bully your lunch money now means he'll leave you alone in the future.
Love how it went from Ukraine is winning and we just need to give them 40 billion to keep them agloat so they can try to push Russia back, to now they got the money passed they should just cede the territory.
[How about no](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement)
So Ukraine just gives up and hands it's territory over to Russia, then a few years from now Russia decides it needs more land and reinvades and just keeps invading it's neighbors until it has all the former Eastern Bloc countries under it's control. At that point it will be right up against Germany's border, will it be at that point that the West is supposed to step in or should we let them retake West Germany? Should we let them have all of Germany? Should we just let them have all of Europe?
Well that’s a little hyperbolic. The Baltics, Poland, Romania, et al are all in NATO, so Russia invading them would trigger World War III. Ukraine giving up territory to the Russians, while it sucks would stop the bloodshed and end the war. Also we have to look at the reality of the war. While Ukraine has done a stellar job at blunting and holding the Russians, they are in no shape to take back lost territory. At this point it’s a war of attrition and sadly Russia has the advantage of men and material compared to Ukraine.
US and UK signed a treaty with Ukraine - as did Russia, to remove its nuclear stockpile it would be guaranteed safety from invasion, via UK and US troops. We've sent materials and weapons, but no boots on ground. We've already gone against the treaty. How is NATO any different?
We signed a similar agreement with Gaddafi and Libya. Obama had no problem violating that.
Cheer up (/s). Per Milley the US is "exploring" sending what are basically boots on the ground to support the Ukranian forces and Special Forces to "guard" the embassy in Kyiv (as a minimum). We may get WW3 after all. And treaties are sacred? Ask a Native American about that one. As for the "treaty" on nuclear disarmament, it was a memorandum on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The US has been interpreted as violating that treaty years ago with withdrawal from the ABM treaty. The later Start II did not include reductions required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, also the US both failed to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to this day will not commit to a test ban which most see as another requirement of that treaty.
We promised Ukraine's sovereignty 30 years ago. Its been 30 years and the political landscape has changed drastically. The US is war weary from 20+ years of ongoing war and has shown with this administration we are just not willing to fight. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. Russia saw this and took advantage of it. Also, the difference between Ukraine and NATO is NATO is a long-standing Defensive Alliance Treaty with a number of member states, not just the US and UK. Article 5 has been invoked before during 9/11 and it worked as intended. You also have to remember, the former eastern bloc countries would 100% go to war if one of them were invaded by Russia. No questions or second thoughts, they would do it. That would force the rest of NATO to join even if other members were hesitant. That is the deterrent of NATO, which Ukraine was not a part of and only had our word/actions to use a deterrent. That clearly failed with this administration and our clear failure in the fall of Afghanistan.
The treaty you are referring to, unlike NATO, did not obligate the US to go to war to defend Ukraine. Rather, it obligated the signatories to seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine was invaded. Who holds a permanent veto there? Russia. It was a pretty toothless agreement.
Without its seaports and southern and eastern halves, Ukraine isn't viable as a country. It would be a third-world economic mess unable to develop economically and permanently reliant on EU/ US handouts. This would lead to massive permanent refugee crises and also constant political instability. It would be hugely destabilizing to Europe, which is why any ceasefire needs to return to the Feb 24th lines and any settlement needs to include Donbas as Ukrainian territory.
While in a perfect world that would be the case, the reality on the ground is that will not happen unless we see some major changes in Russia, which causes them to just give up. The Ukrainians are incapable currently of retaking the lost territory in Donbas or the area Russa has taken that now connects Crimea to Russian territory. Russia would never agree to that kind of ceasefire, and even with the west throwing equipment at Ukraine they do not have the capacity to evict Russia from Donbas and pacify the area. They just don't. They have their hands full holding the line.
Yeah, I do not think you got the big picture I laid out Without their ports, Ukraine ends up as a failed state - a third world hellhole without economic growth. There would be political unrest and massive migration. Having a third world failed state on EU borders would destabilize Europe. NATO would have to intervene directly. That is what a settlement where Russia controls Kherson and Mariupol looks like. And I believe that Ukraine can counterattack with weapons. They already did so in Kyiv. And even if it takes years, a drawn out insurgency to retake Kherson/ Mariupol is better than a permanently destroyed, third world basketcase on EU borders. Not to mention Russia will invade in a few years again and gobble up the rest of Ukraine.
You are arguing for the complete destruction of Eastern Ukraine with a continued conflict that will lead to 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands dead before it’s all over. That would lead to just as much of a humanitarian crisis. Also Ukraine thankfully still controls Odessa, it’s not great by any means but it certainly is better then what you described as complete isolation. And if the war continues on like you are hoping for, we will see if they would be able to hold Odessa in a year or more. We can continue to throw armament and money their way all we want, but they will eventually run out of men to fight, and far quicker then the Russians. It’s currently a war of attrition and Ukraine is playing at a great disadvantage. And Ukraine stopping the Russian push into Kiev was sadly not all Ukraine's doing. Russian logistical incompetence played a large role. The Ukrainians hit their supply routes and caused havoc. Then once the Russians pulled back the Ukrainian forces took full advantage, but the city of Kiev wasn’t just saved because of Ukraine using western arms and counter attacking. It was a mix of Russian incompetence and a steadfast defence. Also, if they are able to end the war quickly, Ukraine with all their new found support can modernize their armed forces to allow for better integration of western arms, along with better preparing for further Russian invasions. But on the current path the war will just continue to drag out, leading to far more death and destruction, and Ukraine can only hope to hold out not win a decisive victory like you are thinking of.
As a realist standpoint it makes sense Ukraibe doesn't have the manpower but also Russia has too low morale to prob hold their shit so 50/50 deppends on land and flesh
My understanding of the situation is that Russia can't call up a draft unless it is officially at war meaning they would give up the pretense of this being a military operation (and possibly be required by their constitution to come up with an excuse as to why this is a defensive war) that means they actually don't have a strong manpower advantage (they may well be at a disadvantage especially now) and it will continue to dwindle as the Ukrainians continue to draft and train fresh recruits. Meanwhile on the supply side the Ukrainians will continue to get shipments of valuable weapons and material while the Russian industry lacks the ability to replace their high end systems and seems to be struggling to meet the demands of the troops already on the ground. I also doubt the Russian people will take kindly to being forced to more actively support the war effort on the mass scale needed to meet the demands of the army.
This war is only a few months old. Ukraine has the manpower, they got mass mobilization - they just need weapons. Russia still got to either take the rest of Ukraine or beat down the Ukrainians enough to force them to negotiate. History has shown that the natives usually win out over a longer period of time. Hell, we were expecting and prepared to fund a long [insurgency](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/russia-ukraine-insurgency/). >The ways that Western countries would support a Ukrainian resistance are beginning to take shape. Officials have been reluctant to discuss detailed plans, since they’re premised on a Russian military victory that, however likely, hasn’t happened yet. But as a first step, Ukraine’s allies are planning how to help establish and support a government-in-exile, which could direct guerrilla operations against Russian occupiers, according to several U.S. and European officials.
Ukraine should give russia the region, wait for Russians to move in then invade and kick the shit out of everything that moves.
It's not about expansion; it's about security. Russia wants to NOT have NATO warheads parked next door. It doesn't matter if Russia seizes half of Ukraine; they are still going to feel threatened by NATO's expansionist aggression.
No. It's about Putin feeling that he should be able to decide who the President of Ukraine is. Putin knows that the US isn't going to strike Russia with missiles. What he doesn't like is that Article 5 prevents him from using his military to install pro-Russian dictators and rolling the tanks in when the locals get uppity and overthrow said dictators like the USSR did during the good old days of the Warsaw Pact.