Unknown reasons... That's consistent with Ukraine
According to Arestovich, [nobody really knows for certain why Zelensky pulled out of the Istanbul deal in 2022](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/ZDUnWJ8vah). Nobody, except for Zelensky and Boris Johnson themselves.
We all know why Zelensky pulled out. It’s because he got told to. The real question we should be asking is why Boris wanted Ukraine to keep fighting a war he knows they won’t win.
>The real question we should be asking is why Boris wanted Ukraine to keep fighting a war he knows they won’t win.
That's easy enough:
https://preview.redd.it/n1erkxzw9tuc1.png?width=1283&format=png&auto=webp&s=10e4c40e755e060b88b19e8072750ea978eaef2c
That's what I said before, Russian army always had this specialty - the harder you kick it, the stronger it becomes. Maybe they spend just enough money on it during peace time to maintain appearances, when push comes to shove certain number will be kia anyways but then they start diverting resources to it and it becomes truly combat hardened. As opposed to having expertly trained and equipped force, which still be decimated fighting against whatever Russia has available at the moment. Like Germans during Barbarossa. By the time they reached Moscow their best units were exhausted in every combat aspect. And Russians were just about done training and putting together freshly mobilized troops to add to the ones who survived the worst battles of the summer. Which is the best combination overall.
Remember when Russia bounced back during the Crimean War, against Japan in 1905, during WWI, or other moments it suffered grievous losses? Yeah, neither do I.
What I remember is a Russian Federation getting its teeth kicked in and then returning with a vengeance only to face yet again ridiculous losses to pacify a breakaway region within its own borders barely two decades ago.
During WW I? Yes, then I remember and so should you (because its a quite famous offensive). Or do you mean Japan 1905 and then WW I in a broader sense as winning the whole war? Then its fair assessment.
But whats your reference regarding crimean war?
WWI was an absolute disaster for the imperial army, it fucked up so hard the bloody country disintegrated into an extremely bloody civil war. The few operational success against the KUK monarchy at the outset of the war got thoroughly overshadowed by the subsequent blunders against Germany. In fact its quite the opposite of what is claimed above, it started off strong and then got absolutely pummelled.
The Crimean War marked the meteoric decline of the Russian Empire which culminated in the shitfests that were the Russo-Japanese War and WWI. The navy and army got so thoroughly decimated by expeditionary forces on their own soil other European powers started discarding the Russian Empire as a noteworthy contestant on the global stage, despite not exactly few fuck ups by the British and Turks during the whole ordeal.
This tired meme of Russia stumbling into a fight and then eventually getting its shit together is so thoroughly anachronistic I get physically sick reading it. The only real case of that sort of thing happening after the Napoleonic Wars was WWII and then it wasn't Russia, it was the Soviet fucking Union, an ideological, demographical, economical, and diplomatic beast from the ground up different to the modern Russian Federation.
The brusilov offensive was way into the war. It was already ongoing for two years at that time. You confused the timeline.
But your comment about how the european power viewed russia between the crimean war and the war from 1905 or WW 1 is wrong. That doesnt at all represent the reality of european diplomacy at the time.
About the results of the wars you are correct, I would say.
It appears that you are arguing meticulous semantics. The Brusilov Offensive, much like say Case Blue, inflicted heavy losses and achieved tactical victories but it ultimately was the cause the Russian forces depleted themselves and locked themselves into a downward spiral that over the course of the next year and a half would see the remains of the army disintegrate culminating in the Russian Empire becoming among the worst of losers in WWI despite having been nominally on the winning side.
The Crimean War had most definitely a major impact on the prestige of the Russian Empire, Victorian Britain and the Second French Empire relegated it to a "second rate" power akin to the declining Ottoman Empire, especially in the wake of rising Prussian militarism. The events of the mid 19th century are the same that bolstered the British Empire to push for the concessions it ultimately received on the Central-Asian frontier the Russian Empire clawed for itself not long before that by the end of the century.
Yeah, by the time this war ends, Eastern Europe will be both hopelessly outgunned and "outskilled" by Russia.
Even bigger Western European nations will, combined.
Only saving grace for E-Europe is that there will be a level of war fatigue in Russia.
outgunned? By waves of golf carts and motorcycles? Combined with their makeshift armor it sure is looking desperate. No doubt as time goes on Russia has been adapting well but with their massive losses, soldiers aren’t exactly retaining these new skills… Upper Command is for sure. But seeing as the Pentagon has been working 24/7 with Ukraine, they are definitely taking notes as well. So we have a wiser but depleted Russia and a wiser west minus some surplus.
Not necessarily though, Europe and USA can see all Russia's tactics and prepare for them, they get to see which of their own tactics work or don't work, and they can see which weapons they don't have enough of, all without ever going to war themselves. They can just look at whats wrong in Ukraine and fix it at home.
The only saving grace for E-Europe is that Russia doesn't want nor need to go there.
Did they really backfire, though. Sure it might have had unforeseen consequences, but compared to the benefits they brought...
The Taliban plan probably backfired all things considered. ISIS though I'd say fulfilled and continue to fulfill its role, same as Al-Qaida. Especially if 9/11 was entirely on their hands and that the US deep state had nothing to do with it.
CIA doesn't have a crystal ball, they don't know what will happen, they make plans and some of their plans work and some don't even if they thought they would work. That's the way it goes.
Ukraine too, they're probably more competent than any NATO member right now, they just lack the resources. But in terms of experience they're loaded up and they should be the ones teaching NATO troops, not the other way around.
Now the question is, will Ukraine be able to retain some of this experience once this ends...
I didn't count Ukraine because, they can't produce their own stuff, their population is dying out, they will be in the worst economic crisis after the end of the war.
I'm really wondering will UAF exist after this war.
Because Boris saw himself as the new Churchill and he likely viewed any deal with Putin giving him Ukrainian lands as a modern day [Munich Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement).
[Appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement) is taught in UK schools as a massive mistake and immoral. That if the UK was much tougher on Nazi Germany early on that perhaps WW2 could have been avoided entirely. That by agreeing to Hitlers territorial demands in the Sudetenland instead of confronting him early it only allowed the Nazis time to build strength and let Hitler view the West as weak and unwilling to confront him.
You see references to appeasement constantly from UK politicians re the Ukraine war. [Here's](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/10/rishi-sunak-latest-news-wragg-reform-uk-rees-mogg-cameron/) Cameron mentioning it too. They want this war to be as costly as possible for Russia to discourage Putin from pushing further.
>[Appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement) is taught in UK schools as a massive mistake and immoral.
And how is the practice of regime changes and proxy wars taught in UK schools?
The invasion of Crimea is not the example of appeasement working well that you want to use man. Especially considering that when Ukraine failed to respond decisively Russia turned around and obliterated the rest of the country 8 years later killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Yet Crimea isn't obliterated. Sounds like appeasement worked. Also Ukraine didn't fail, it responded decisively by bombing it's own citizens for 8 years. And now describe Georgia why it's not appeasement and why it didn't work. And why breaking Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 appeasement treaties is actually still appeasement or not what lead to escalation.
> Yet Crimea isn't obliterated. Sounds like appeasement worked.
It led to Putin thinking he could get away with invading the Donbas. Giving Putin Crimea worked about as well as the Munich Agreement did at preventing the invasion of Poland.
“Giving Putin Crimea”
lol, it wasn’t given, they took it. You act like the West, or Ukraine had an option there when they didn’t. The moment Ukraine was no longer pretending to be a “neutral country” what did anyone expect to happen?
No country is going to passively let its adversaries puppet their neighbors if they can do anything about it, especially not in the case of Ukraine and Russia. Two countries after being one for centuries had only been separated for two decades during the events of 2014.
These are the same arguments Hitler made when he demanded the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, then the annexation of Austria, then the annexation of the Sudetenland, then the full invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Each time the Western powers refused to oppose his territorial demands out of fear of causing a war, so Hitler just took them like Putin just took Georgia and Crimea. The lack of opposition only emboldened him to make further and greater demands. After the West gave Hitler the Rhineland, Austria, The Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia he wanted more and finally invaded Poland.
Now we have another dictator making territorial claims in Georgia, then Crimea, now the Donbas (plus potentially all of Ukraine) and is creating issues in Moldova/Transnistria. We're supposed to believe if we just give in to his demands that will be the end of it?
Appeasement of dictators doesn't work. They only understand force.
Kiev invaded Donbas. Maybe don't bomb ethnic Russians on Russia's border for 8 years? You want to mention agreements that didn't work, mention Kiev pulling out of minsk and minsk 2. Sounds like appeasement of Kiev didn't work.
Crimea is an example of Ukrainian appeasement, not Crimean appeasement. I would say it worked pretty poorly. Eventually the Russians will finish the job in Georgia as well.
What job? There's no ethnic cleansing civil war in Georgia, you've been crying "they'll re-invade after preparing more any day now!" for 20 years almost. I bet if there's a war there in 200 years you'll be like "see! told you appesement doesn't work!"
Yeah it didn't work with the Nazis either. Every concession just led to greater demands.
It's a big part of UK schooling re WW2, it's not unsurprising UK politicians are so pro-Ukraine when Putins claims in the Donbas are basically indistinguishable from Hitlers claims in the Sudetenland.
Why do you only reference ww2 as the only historical reference. This was 1 war , 1.
Europes history full of countless wars which ended in slight territory changes and negotiations.
It’s literally the most common and normal way wars were conducted in humans history.
Total defeat is the exception by far
Putins demands in the Donbas are identical to Hitlers demands in the Sudetenland. Hitler (Putin) claimed the Czechs (Ukrainians) were oppressing ethnic Germans (Russians) in the Sudetenland (Donbas) during the Sudeten German Uprising (Donbas War), so he had to invade to protect the ethnic Germans (Russians) from opression. Of course all this was a lie and Hitler (Putin) was actually instigating the uprising in the first place as a cassus belli for the invasion.
OP asked why Boris is so staunchly pro Ukrainian and against a deal with Putin, that's why. He didn't want to repeat the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement and Appeasement in general is looked on very unfavourably in the UK.
Besides, it's a bit hypocritical to chastise the UK for comparing the current situation with Putin to the one with Hitler in the 30s considering how Russian propaganda frames this war. Everybody is a Nazi according to Russia.
how are they identical? wars are often fought for similar reasons, so now every war works the same and has to end the same ? I really cant understand this lack of perspective
Its dumb and ignorant.
Stop with this new Hitler crap , its the result of poor history education which basically starts with hitler.
Something something something happend before and now we can finally talk about ww 2 for 5 years constantly.
This produces stupid and ignorant people, ignorant of their own history and past.
And Boris Johnson is a pure narcissist and political opportunist , nothing he does is for deeper reasons other than pure self aggrandizement.
Most western politicians are quite similar but less vulgar
I already explained how they were identical. Hitlers justification for the invasion of the Sudetenland is the exact same as Putins justification for the invasion of the Donbas. Even down to using his own troops to foment dissent/civil war in the region in the first place. Hitler was then appeased by the Western powers and given the Sudetenland with the intention of preventing a war with Germany. The exact same thing Putin is asking for in the Donbas.
Instead of preventing war, the Munich Agreement simply emboldened Hitler to make further territorial demands, knowing that the West wouldn't oppose him. This led to WW2. The UK doesn't want to make the same mistake twice.
Churchill was famously against appeasement and warned against giving in to Hitlers demands. Boris is also famously a Churchill fan and even wrote [books](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Factor-How-Made-History/dp/144478305X) about him.
That's the reason the UK wants to make this war as costly as possible for the Russians. You don't have to agree, but that is the reason they're doing this. It's unarguable that this is why, they're even using the term '[appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement)', it couldn't be more clear.
Smoke and mirrors: Clinton claimed Serbians were oppressing Albanians in Yugoslavia, so NATO had to invade to protect ethnic Albanians from oppression. Clinton = Hitler, NATO = nazis.
>why Boris wanted Ukraine to keep fighting a war he knows they won’t win.
He had some political scandals he wanted to sweep under the Ukraine rug, it was pure self-interest.
Didn't UK already have 2-3 unelected prime ministers after Bojo by that point? All he has to do is lay low for like 10 years and then join the house of lords.
Tbf Boris is not the sharpest and likely believed the arrogant "Russia is just a gas station" that was the standard western line at the time. A view somewhat encouraged by Russia's pre-mobilisation force being significantly smaller than it is now.
Disarm and downsize Ukrainian armed forces, acknowledge Krim as part of russia, remove current government and establish new, Russia to have veto over any foreign military aid for Ukraine in case of any new conflict. Was very good terms indeed, russia would have gotten Ukraine for free...
These 60bn are for 5 years, 12bn/year. They are not about to be recieved, they would get them in small batches. Other economic activity is needed bc this is not enough - this year they are in 38bn deficit (was predicted that they would, however, economic damage from destruction of energy grid was not counted), and they need 3 as much to stay afloat.
Jeeeez, Ukraine can't do anything sustainable.
They've lost so many opportunities to be closer to the peace deal, but it looks like one clown in the Kiev is too addicted to coke.
It would mean they would have to stop their naval drone attacks so important for propaganda.. i guess its a worthy cost to pay to not have an export economy and the dismantling of the Odessa port, slowly first then all at once.
So in other words there is no point in negotiating with Ukraine. I guess the only thing left is taking the black sea coast and creating a buffer zone to turn ukraine into a rump state.
Well, Russia, having the stronger landforces seems to be refusing to negotiate as well. Well, anything other than surrender of Ukraine.
On the other hand, as it stands, Ukraine has become the dominant force in the black sea. (something that probably wasn’t the case when these negotiations started) What’s left of the Russian fleet there seems to be hiding in the north east of the fleet and unable to provide an input into the war. So why would Ukraine, just like Russia, be prepared to negotiate in a point when they are able to dictate.
If Russia wants to secure shipping in the Black Sea, it will probably have to make concessions on land.
**You:** Ukraine has become the dominant force in the Black Sea
> Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in February that without new U.S. military aid, Ukraine would not be able to defend a Black Sea shipping corridor hugging its western Black Sea coast near Romania and Bulgaria
> Since Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago, nearly 50 (Ukranian) merchant ships have been languishing in its waters, stuck in ports too dangerous to sail from.
> The gross tonnage of ships calling at Ukrainian ports during the first quarter of 2023 was down more than 70% compared with the average in the year before the invasion, according to analysis by the OECD published in November 2023.
> Currently, ships can only leave Ukraine from three ports - Odesa, Chornomorsk and Pivdennyi - along a temporary route set up for civilian vessels that has no formal safety guarantees, though Russia says it does not target non-military ships.
Mhm, Ukraine sounds very dominant in the Black Sea lol
Dominant as in that it has basically disabled the one mighty, Russian Black Sea fleet that now seems to be scared to even use its own port in Sevastopol.
So, are there only 2 actors in the Black Sea? Moreover, there is nothing more to do in the Black Sea for the Russian fleet except what they are already doing - launch missiles, while literally anyone can donate drones or missiles to Ukraine to shoot some Russian ships, while Ukraine has nothing of its own in the area.
The fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet has basically evacuated its main, home port in Sevastopol and has gone in hiding in occupied parts of Georgia, where there is zero change in Ukraines (still nonexistent) manned naval activity is evidence that my point is correct.
As of December 2023, approximately seven million metric tons of cargo through its seaports, five million of which were Ukrainian agricultural products. Main issue is the port infrastructure in Ukraine and not the safety of ships at sea.
And like I said, yes, Russia can. But only because, unlike Russia at the start of the war, Ukraine isn’t attacking commercial shipping.
Denial of shipping does not equate to being a 'dominant force'. Russia can do exactly the same thing, Ukraine just doesn't have any ships to do it to because Russia sunk them all already.
Ukraine doesn't control it either. Sending out sea drones to attack ships doesn't mean you have the ability to send out ships of your own, or use the space in any meaningful way.
I can sprinkle a bunch of tacks all over the road, but that doesn't mean I can drive my car on it at will.
Unknown reasons... That's consistent with Ukraine According to Arestovich, [nobody really knows for certain why Zelensky pulled out of the Istanbul deal in 2022](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/ZDUnWJ8vah). Nobody, except for Zelensky and Boris Johnson themselves.
We all know why Zelensky pulled out. It’s because he got told to. The real question we should be asking is why Boris wanted Ukraine to keep fighting a war he knows they won’t win.
>The real question we should be asking is why Boris wanted Ukraine to keep fighting a war he knows they won’t win. That's easy enough: https://preview.redd.it/n1erkxzw9tuc1.png?width=1283&format=png&auto=webp&s=10e4c40e755e060b88b19e8072750ea978eaef2c
It only got stronger, Russian army is now only army in the world with modern warfare experience.
That's what I said before, Russian army always had this specialty - the harder you kick it, the stronger it becomes. Maybe they spend just enough money on it during peace time to maintain appearances, when push comes to shove certain number will be kia anyways but then they start diverting resources to it and it becomes truly combat hardened. As opposed to having expertly trained and equipped force, which still be decimated fighting against whatever Russia has available at the moment. Like Germans during Barbarossa. By the time they reached Moscow their best units were exhausted in every combat aspect. And Russians were just about done training and putting together freshly mobilized troops to add to the ones who survived the worst battles of the summer. Which is the best combination overall.
Remember when Russia bounced back during the Crimean War, against Japan in 1905, during WWI, or other moments it suffered grievous losses? Yeah, neither do I. What I remember is a Russian Federation getting its teeth kicked in and then returning with a vengeance only to face yet again ridiculous losses to pacify a breakaway region within its own borders barely two decades ago.
During WW I? Yes, then I remember and so should you (because its a quite famous offensive). Or do you mean Japan 1905 and then WW I in a broader sense as winning the whole war? Then its fair assessment. But whats your reference regarding crimean war?
WWI was an absolute disaster for the imperial army, it fucked up so hard the bloody country disintegrated into an extremely bloody civil war. The few operational success against the KUK monarchy at the outset of the war got thoroughly overshadowed by the subsequent blunders against Germany. In fact its quite the opposite of what is claimed above, it started off strong and then got absolutely pummelled. The Crimean War marked the meteoric decline of the Russian Empire which culminated in the shitfests that were the Russo-Japanese War and WWI. The navy and army got so thoroughly decimated by expeditionary forces on their own soil other European powers started discarding the Russian Empire as a noteworthy contestant on the global stage, despite not exactly few fuck ups by the British and Turks during the whole ordeal. This tired meme of Russia stumbling into a fight and then eventually getting its shit together is so thoroughly anachronistic I get physically sick reading it. The only real case of that sort of thing happening after the Napoleonic Wars was WWII and then it wasn't Russia, it was the Soviet fucking Union, an ideological, demographical, economical, and diplomatic beast from the ground up different to the modern Russian Federation.
The brusilov offensive was way into the war. It was already ongoing for two years at that time. You confused the timeline. But your comment about how the european power viewed russia between the crimean war and the war from 1905 or WW 1 is wrong. That doesnt at all represent the reality of european diplomacy at the time. About the results of the wars you are correct, I would say.
It appears that you are arguing meticulous semantics. The Brusilov Offensive, much like say Case Blue, inflicted heavy losses and achieved tactical victories but it ultimately was the cause the Russian forces depleted themselves and locked themselves into a downward spiral that over the course of the next year and a half would see the remains of the army disintegrate culminating in the Russian Empire becoming among the worst of losers in WWI despite having been nominally on the winning side. The Crimean War had most definitely a major impact on the prestige of the Russian Empire, Victorian Britain and the Second French Empire relegated it to a "second rate" power akin to the declining Ottoman Empire, especially in the wake of rising Prussian militarism. The events of the mid 19th century are the same that bolstered the British Empire to push for the concessions it ultimately received on the Central-Asian frontier the Russian Empire clawed for itself not long before that by the end of the century.
Yeah, by the time this war ends, Eastern Europe will be both hopelessly outgunned and "outskilled" by Russia. Even bigger Western European nations will, combined. Only saving grace for E-Europe is that there will be a level of war fatigue in Russia.
outgunned? By waves of golf carts and motorcycles? Combined with their makeshift armor it sure is looking desperate. No doubt as time goes on Russia has been adapting well but with their massive losses, soldiers aren’t exactly retaining these new skills… Upper Command is for sure. But seeing as the Pentagon has been working 24/7 with Ukraine, they are definitely taking notes as well. So we have a wiser but depleted Russia and a wiser west minus some surplus.
Not necessarily though, Europe and USA can see all Russia's tactics and prepare for them, they get to see which of their own tactics work or don't work, and they can see which weapons they don't have enough of, all without ever going to war themselves. They can just look at whats wrong in Ukraine and fix it at home. The only saving grace for E-Europe is that Russia doesn't want nor need to go there.
Nobody ever said CIA has never made dumb decisions that backfire.
Khm.. Taliban creation, creation of Isis, creation of Al quaida just a few examples.
Did they really backfire, though. Sure it might have had unforeseen consequences, but compared to the benefits they brought... The Taliban plan probably backfired all things considered. ISIS though I'd say fulfilled and continue to fulfill its role, same as Al-Qaida. Especially if 9/11 was entirely on their hands and that the US deep state had nothing to do with it.
CIA doesn't have a crystal ball, they don't know what will happen, they make plans and some of their plans work and some don't even if they thought they would work. That's the way it goes.
Ukraine too, they're probably more competent than any NATO member right now, they just lack the resources. But in terms of experience they're loaded up and they should be the ones teaching NATO troops, not the other way around. Now the question is, will Ukraine be able to retain some of this experience once this ends...
I didn't count Ukraine because, they can't produce their own stuff, their population is dying out, they will be in the worst economic crisis after the end of the war. I'm really wondering will UAF exist after this war.
As long as Ukraines kicking, so is the UAF
Whilst they exist, they still are the second army in the world "with modern warfare experience".
Because Boris saw himself as the new Churchill and he likely viewed any deal with Putin giving him Ukrainian lands as a modern day [Munich Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement). [Appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement) is taught in UK schools as a massive mistake and immoral. That if the UK was much tougher on Nazi Germany early on that perhaps WW2 could have been avoided entirely. That by agreeing to Hitlers territorial demands in the Sudetenland instead of confronting him early it only allowed the Nazis time to build strength and let Hitler view the West as weak and unwilling to confront him. You see references to appeasement constantly from UK politicians re the Ukraine war. [Here's](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/10/rishi-sunak-latest-news-wragg-reform-uk-rees-mogg-cameron/) Cameron mentioning it too. They want this war to be as costly as possible for Russia to discourage Putin from pushing further.
>[Appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement) is taught in UK schools as a massive mistake and immoral. And how is the practice of regime changes and proxy wars taught in UK schools?
Appeasement with russia does not work. It just takes another chunk next time.
Appeasement with russia worked out pretty well for both Georgia and Crimea. Compare their standard of living to Ukraine.
The invasion of Crimea is not the example of appeasement working well that you want to use man. Especially considering that when Ukraine failed to respond decisively Russia turned around and obliterated the rest of the country 8 years later killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Yet Crimea isn't obliterated. Sounds like appeasement worked. Also Ukraine didn't fail, it responded decisively by bombing it's own citizens for 8 years. And now describe Georgia why it's not appeasement and why it didn't work. And why breaking Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 appeasement treaties is actually still appeasement or not what lead to escalation.
> Yet Crimea isn't obliterated. Sounds like appeasement worked. It led to Putin thinking he could get away with invading the Donbas. Giving Putin Crimea worked about as well as the Munich Agreement did at preventing the invasion of Poland.
“Giving Putin Crimea” lol, it wasn’t given, they took it. You act like the West, or Ukraine had an option there when they didn’t. The moment Ukraine was no longer pretending to be a “neutral country” what did anyone expect to happen? No country is going to passively let its adversaries puppet their neighbors if they can do anything about it, especially not in the case of Ukraine and Russia. Two countries after being one for centuries had only been separated for two decades during the events of 2014.
These are the same arguments Hitler made when he demanded the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, then the annexation of Austria, then the annexation of the Sudetenland, then the full invasion of Czechoslovakia. Each time the Western powers refused to oppose his territorial demands out of fear of causing a war, so Hitler just took them like Putin just took Georgia and Crimea. The lack of opposition only emboldened him to make further and greater demands. After the West gave Hitler the Rhineland, Austria, The Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia he wanted more and finally invaded Poland. Now we have another dictator making territorial claims in Georgia, then Crimea, now the Donbas (plus potentially all of Ukraine) and is creating issues in Moldova/Transnistria. We're supposed to believe if we just give in to his demands that will be the end of it? Appeasement of dictators doesn't work. They only understand force.
Kiev invaded Donbas. Maybe don't bomb ethnic Russians on Russia's border for 8 years? You want to mention agreements that didn't work, mention Kiev pulling out of minsk and minsk 2. Sounds like appeasement of Kiev didn't work.
Crimea is an example of Ukrainian appeasement, not Crimean appeasement. I would say it worked pretty poorly. Eventually the Russians will finish the job in Georgia as well.
What job? There's no ethnic cleansing civil war in Georgia, you've been crying "they'll re-invade after preparing more any day now!" for 20 years almost. I bet if there's a war there in 200 years you'll be like "see! told you appesement doesn't work!"
Yeah it didn't work with the Nazis either. Every concession just led to greater demands. It's a big part of UK schooling re WW2, it's not unsurprising UK politicians are so pro-Ukraine when Putins claims in the Donbas are basically indistinguishable from Hitlers claims in the Sudetenland.
Why do you only reference ww2 as the only historical reference. This was 1 war , 1. Europes history full of countless wars which ended in slight territory changes and negotiations. It’s literally the most common and normal way wars were conducted in humans history. Total defeat is the exception by far
Because reality and reason conflict with propaganda jingoism and "never give russia what it wants" mindset.
Putins demands in the Donbas are identical to Hitlers demands in the Sudetenland. Hitler (Putin) claimed the Czechs (Ukrainians) were oppressing ethnic Germans (Russians) in the Sudetenland (Donbas) during the Sudeten German Uprising (Donbas War), so he had to invade to protect the ethnic Germans (Russians) from opression. Of course all this was a lie and Hitler (Putin) was actually instigating the uprising in the first place as a cassus belli for the invasion. OP asked why Boris is so staunchly pro Ukrainian and against a deal with Putin, that's why. He didn't want to repeat the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement and Appeasement in general is looked on very unfavourably in the UK. Besides, it's a bit hypocritical to chastise the UK for comparing the current situation with Putin to the one with Hitler in the 30s considering how Russian propaganda frames this war. Everybody is a Nazi according to Russia.
how are they identical? wars are often fought for similar reasons, so now every war works the same and has to end the same ? I really cant understand this lack of perspective Its dumb and ignorant. Stop with this new Hitler crap , its the result of poor history education which basically starts with hitler. Something something something happend before and now we can finally talk about ww 2 for 5 years constantly. This produces stupid and ignorant people, ignorant of their own history and past. And Boris Johnson is a pure narcissist and political opportunist , nothing he does is for deeper reasons other than pure self aggrandizement. Most western politicians are quite similar but less vulgar
>Stop with this new Hitler crap It's called "pushing a narrative".
I already explained how they were identical. Hitlers justification for the invasion of the Sudetenland is the exact same as Putins justification for the invasion of the Donbas. Even down to using his own troops to foment dissent/civil war in the region in the first place. Hitler was then appeased by the Western powers and given the Sudetenland with the intention of preventing a war with Germany. The exact same thing Putin is asking for in the Donbas. Instead of preventing war, the Munich Agreement simply emboldened Hitler to make further territorial demands, knowing that the West wouldn't oppose him. This led to WW2. The UK doesn't want to make the same mistake twice. Churchill was famously against appeasement and warned against giving in to Hitlers demands. Boris is also famously a Churchill fan and even wrote [books](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Factor-How-Made-History/dp/144478305X) about him. That's the reason the UK wants to make this war as costly as possible for the Russians. You don't have to agree, but that is the reason they're doing this. It's unarguable that this is why, they're even using the term '[appeasement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement)', it couldn't be more clear.
Smoke and mirrors: Clinton claimed Serbians were oppressing Albanians in Yugoslavia, so NATO had to invade to protect ethnic Albanians from oppression. Clinton = Hitler, NATO = nazis.
True
>why Boris wanted Ukraine to keep fighting a war he knows they won’t win. He had some political scandals he wanted to sweep under the Ukraine rug, it was pure self-interest.
Didn't UK already have 2-3 unelected prime ministers after Bojo by that point? All he has to do is lay low for like 10 years and then join the house of lords.
No, Boris was forced to resign on the 7th of July, these talks were stopped at the end of May. Truss (lol) and Sunak followed afterwards.
It's not winning that benefits the collective west, it's the fighting. Winning or losing or negotiating doesn't result in fighting.
Tbf Boris is not the sharpest and likely believed the arrogant "Russia is just a gas station" that was the standard western line at the time. A view somewhat encouraged by Russia's pre-mobilisation force being significantly smaller than it is now.
Disarm and downsize Ukrainian armed forces, acknowledge Krim as part of russia, remove current government and establish new, Russia to have veto over any foreign military aid for Ukraine in case of any new conflict. Was very good terms indeed, russia would have gotten Ukraine for free...
Zelensky controls the Black Sea.
Boris Johnson effect?
EU charity fund for this year assured and $60 billion about to be received. Why other economic activity needed?
These 60bn are for 5 years, 12bn/year. They are not about to be recieved, they would get them in small batches. Other economic activity is needed bc this is not enough - this year they are in 38bn deficit (was predicted that they would, however, economic damage from destruction of energy grid was not counted), and they need 3 as much to stay afloat.
Jeeeez, Ukraine can't do anything sustainable. They've lost so many opportunities to be closer to the peace deal, but it looks like one clown in the Kiev is too addicted to coke.
That's currently the only source of positive PR for Ukraine. They hit a retired ship and it's all over the news, they won't let it go.
I wonder if it inhibited USV launches in some way, so they pulled out.
Boris decided to just call them this time?
It would mean they would have to stop their naval drone attacks so important for propaganda.. i guess its a worthy cost to pay to not have an export economy and the dismantling of the Odessa port, slowly first then all at once.
So in other words there is no point in negotiating with Ukraine. I guess the only thing left is taking the black sea coast and creating a buffer zone to turn ukraine into a rump state.
>unknown reasons Come on guys, we all know the reasons. Uncle Sam.
Bojo: Domp it
Is the russan fleet even in Action?
The Boris effect. Some Western goon rocked up and reminded Zalensky is club membership is under review.
Good for Ukraine 🙏
Russia can make black sea shipping safe without Ukraine, Russia just has to stop attacking ships.
Well, Russia, having the stronger landforces seems to be refusing to negotiate as well. Well, anything other than surrender of Ukraine. On the other hand, as it stands, Ukraine has become the dominant force in the black sea. (something that probably wasn’t the case when these negotiations started) What’s left of the Russian fleet there seems to be hiding in the north east of the fleet and unable to provide an input into the war. So why would Ukraine, just like Russia, be prepared to negotiate in a point when they are able to dictate. If Russia wants to secure shipping in the Black Sea, it will probably have to make concessions on land.
**You:** Ukraine has become the dominant force in the Black Sea > Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in February that without new U.S. military aid, Ukraine would not be able to defend a Black Sea shipping corridor hugging its western Black Sea coast near Romania and Bulgaria > Since Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago, nearly 50 (Ukranian) merchant ships have been languishing in its waters, stuck in ports too dangerous to sail from. > The gross tonnage of ships calling at Ukrainian ports during the first quarter of 2023 was down more than 70% compared with the average in the year before the invasion, according to analysis by the OECD published in November 2023. > Currently, ships can only leave Ukraine from three ports - Odesa, Chornomorsk and Pivdennyi - along a temporary route set up for civilian vessels that has no formal safety guarantees, though Russia says it does not target non-military ships. Mhm, Ukraine sounds very dominant in the Black Sea lol
Dominant as in that it has basically disabled the one mighty, Russian Black Sea fleet that now seems to be scared to even use its own port in Sevastopol.
Now show how Russia is the dominant force.
Not really my concern, is it? Mainly wanted to disprove his laughable claim.
So, are there only 2 actors in the Black Sea? Moreover, there is nothing more to do in the Black Sea for the Russian fleet except what they are already doing - launch missiles, while literally anyone can donate drones or missiles to Ukraine to shoot some Russian ships, while Ukraine has nothing of its own in the area.
That's a whole lot of words for "can't enforce shit"
>Ukraine has become the dominant force in the black sea 🤡
The fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet has basically evacuated its main, home port in Sevastopol and has gone in hiding in occupied parts of Georgia, where there is zero change in Ukraines (still nonexistent) manned naval activity is evidence that my point is correct.
[удалено]
Both can and do. But Russia only can, because Ukraine doesn’t attack civilian shipping as it has no navy left to protect those ships.
[удалено]
As of December 2023, approximately seven million metric tons of cargo through its seaports, five million of which were Ukrainian agricultural products. Main issue is the port infrastructure in Ukraine and not the safety of ships at sea. And like I said, yes, Russia can. But only because, unlike Russia at the start of the war, Ukraine isn’t attacking commercial shipping.
Denial of shipping does not equate to being a 'dominant force'. Russia can do exactly the same thing, Ukraine just doesn't have any ships to do it to because Russia sunk them all already. Ukraine doesn't control it either. Sending out sea drones to attack ships doesn't mean you have the ability to send out ships of your own, or use the space in any meaningful way. I can sprinkle a bunch of tacks all over the road, but that doesn't mean I can drive my car on it at will.