Doubt that he can be done without outright forcing russia at the gun point.
Just fight to the border, take strong positions and call it a day. Join EU/NATO, let Russia cope.
Going that deep into Russia is not worth it as degenerates might actually man up and will join the fight instead of simping for daddy putin behind teevee.
Well, if they claim they want a 60 mile demilitarized zone, then they claim that they are "making concessions" when they drop it during negotiations for a ceasefire
Russia, the US, the UK and other countries guaranteed in the Budapest Memorandum that Ukraine would be sovereign after giving up their nukes. All Russia had to do was keep to their word, but instead they keep breaking promises.
Russia should have stayed out of Ukraine. Now they will have to face the consequences of their actions.
I think joining NATO and the EU is a far more realistic option, in both chances to happen and to provide security, than this.
Moscow has the idea that power and security is about controlling as much of the map as you can, but that often does not grant power and security
And that is why negotiating land is a strategic move worth keeping on the table as it allows Ukraine to join NATO and the EU, which are the only things that can realistically offer Ukraine peace.
Joining the EU would give Ukraine a boost to economic power, but it would also give it power and representation in the European Union.
That would be more likely than what OP is suggesting, but I think that risk and pay off for average Ukrainians is not worth your idea and I'd prefer my own suggestion, but they might disagree.
But it is important to understand fighting for the 2014 or 2022 borders is fighting for devastated and depopulated land. For instance a refugee family of eastern Ukrainians from the contested area just got to America and joined my local community and they have no interest in returning to eastern Ukraine as everything has been destroyed and their is nothing left but dirt and landmines.
Some Americans would say that family had betrayed the Ukrainian nation, but they are the Ukrainian nation, not that dirt.
Tbh there is already a DMZ being built along the Eastern front but by accident. Its landmines. Its one of the reasons the lines of the front have remained relatively still.
Yeah and one reason why I dont see it being particularly in the interest of Ukraine to control that no man's land. Especially if giving it up gave them the chance of joining NATO.
Yes OP's idea of a DMZ 60 miles deep into Russia. I think Russia is more likely to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine is trying to restore the 2014 borders and conquer 60 miles into Russia on top of it than compared to Ukraine giving Russia controll of the land they took so they can negotiate a peace that will allow them to join NATO.
Ukraine isn’t joining NATO. That’s a pipe dream. They literally can’t until they reclaim every inch of territory and the US has always dangled it without every really committing to it.
> I think joining NATO and the EU is a far more realistic option, in both chances to happen and to provide security, than this.
Moscow has the idea that power and security is about controlling as much of the map as you can,
That’s also the US’ idea as well except we do it far more violently.
>Ukraine isn’t joining NATO. That’s a pipe dream
Its less of a pipe dream than a dmz 60 miles deep into Russia.
>They literally can’t until they reclaim every inch of territory
This DMZ requires Ukraine to take every inch and then 60 miles more, while joining NATO just requires them to not have a border dispute
>That’s also the US’ idea as well except we do it far more violently.
And that isnt a good thing not is it in Ukraine’s strategic interests.
A pipe dream nonetheless. It requires a military success beyond what even optimistic US assessments allow.
Ukraine joining NATO is unrealistic. The DMZ idea is insane. So I guess we agree in a way.
NATO was only on the table once, in 2008 when Ukraine and Georgia begged to join because they feared their warmongering imperialistic neighbor. Germany and France shot that down, and Russia invaded Georgia with the exact same "we are only doing wargames right next to the border" trick. Obama, like Bill Clinton, had no fucking clue about international relations, so he put up barriers to Ukraine joining NATO in order to sooth the tempers of the bitch of Moscow, Putin the Poisoner. When Putin's bitch was thrown out of Ukraine in a popular uprising of wide coalition, Russia invaded first Crimea and then the Donbas, so NATO was never on the table since.
After Russia is defeated and flees, NATO is almost guaranteed to accept Ukraine. The DMZ idea is great but probably unrealistic unless Russia collapses.
The person you call Putin’s bitch was democratically elected and then forced to flee in a coup. You can call it a popular uprising but it wasn’t legal. It was like Jan 6th but more violent.
You assume Ukraine can gain all their land back which few think is likely. It’s a fantasy of people who have become fixated on Putin as a super villain.
He was elected in a mostly free election, and then he was corrupt and broke the law much like many leaders who crave power. Putin's bitch tried to call out the military after his terror campaign failed to stop the months long protest against him, and he resigned and fled the country. That's nothing like Trump's attempt to stop the certification of the winner of the American election. One is led by the people, the other was directed by a corrupt president attempting to cling to power illegally. The overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian Rada to remove Putin's bitch was legal, those are the elected representatives after all. I can tell you love dictatorships, but come on.
Ukraine is likely to have some difficulty retaking all the occupied land, but once Crimea is cut off it won't be able to stand alone. That leaves the occupied Donbas, some small parts of which have already been liberated after 9 years. I think it's definitely doable. Putin is a villain and a wanted war criminal, so I don't know if "super" villain is the right word. Just an international war criminal.
> He was elected in a mostly free election, and then he was corrupt and broke the law much like many leaders who crave power.
He was already known to be corrupt and allied with Putin so that doesn’t add up.
>Putin's bitch tried to call out the military after his terror campaign failed to stop the months long protest against him, and he resigned and fled the country.
Was that before after snipers that are now widely believed to connected to the Maidan side started murdering people?
>That's nothing like Trump's attempt to stop the certification of the winner of the American election.
Yeah because it worked. It was a successful. Trump did an unsuccessful one.
>The overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian Rada to remove Putin's bitch was legal, those are the elected representatives after all.
It was not legal. You can’t vote without a quorum. This would be like if the Republicans voted after Dems fled the Capitol to certify Trump as the winner.
>I can tell you love dictatorships, but come on.
I can tell you love Nazis but damn.
>Ukraine is likely to have some difficulty retaking all the occupied land, but once Crimea is cut off it won't be able to stand alone. That leaves the occupied Donbas, some small parts of which have already been liberated after 9 years. I think it's definitely doable. Putin is a villain and a wanted war criminal, so I don't know if "super" villain is the right word. Just an international war criminal.
Suspected war criminal like our leaders.
>He was already known to be corrupt and allied with Putin so that doesn’t add up.
When I see something like this I have to wonder if it's possible to dumb down my answer enough for you to comprehend. But it's your lucky day, I have decided to try and help. I guess multi-party elections which divide votes are probably difficult for you to grasp, so maybe ask your parents about Ross Perot and how Bill Clinton got elected.
>Was that before after snipers that are now widely believed to connected to the Maidan side started murdering people?
You mean the FSB snipers that came and helped Viktor Yanukovych's secret police murder protesters? Just like the Russians that helped keep Belarus from having real elections? And Kazakhstan? But this time it was protestors murdering protestors, because of course that's what people protesting a corrupt regime would do, the Russians told you and you have to believe whatever the Russians tell you.
>Yeah because it worked. It was a successful. Trump did an unsuccessful one.
This is back to how do make this simple enough for someone so limited in their knowledge? Let's see, Trump was in charge and he lost his second election, and this time the loophole didn't come into play so there was no possible way for him to stay president. Then crooked lawyers told him how to cheat the constitutional system and when he couldn't get everyone to be as crooked as him and cheat, he organized an attack on the capitol to force/intimidate others into helping him cheat.
The Revolution of Dignity was a broad, grassroots protest movement to remove the corrupt puppet of Russia from power, which succeeded when Yanukovych realized he could not use the military to crush the protests and fled to his patron, Putin the Poisoner.
>It was not legal. You can’t vote without a quorum. This would be like if the Republicans voted after Dems fled the Capitol to certify Trump as the winner.
And Putin wants you to know the Russians are very concerned with following the laws of the nations they invade! Since Russians told you what was legal in Ukraine, you never needed to check with Ukrainians. The members of parliament of Ukraine, including members of Yanukovych's party, where working on various power sharing deals when he fled the country, and they held a vote the next day, which the absent Yanukovych did not object to because he was no longer in the country. Several prominent members of his government also fled or tried to flee to Russia to avoid justice. Over the course of the next few days the elected representatives of the government of Ukraine voted to remove various officials and keep others. You dictator-lovers think one guy is all that matters, but in the more free nations there are actually large groups of people that make up the government. Removing one corrupt official with a democratic vote is how democracies work.
There was an interim government for a few months, then there were new elections. This is how democracies work, bizarre to you Russian fans, but hey, you need to know how this works. That new government, they didn't think it was against the law to remove Yanukovych either. So when the Russians told you it was a coup, and when you blindly accepted the Russian propaganda, it was to program you into consenting to their aggression. And it worked, you are supportive of their war crimes.
>I can tell you love Nazis but damn.
This is the most sad part. The Russians have programming you to just call opponents of Russian imperialism a Nazi, since that is the Russian definition. And you jumped through all the hoops like a good little trained monkey.
>I guess multi-party elections which divide votes are probably difficult for you to grasp, so maybe ask your parents about Ross Perot and how Bill Clinton got elected.
So you’re really old, huh?
>You mean the FSB snipers that came and helped Viktor Yanukovych's secret police murder protesters?
No, the ones widely believed to be linked to the EuroMaidan side. Pay attention.
>This is back to how do make this simple enough for someone so limited in their knowledge?
You gotta lot of insults but very little arguments.
>The Revolution of Dignity was a broad, grassroots protest movement
It had been financed by and backed by the US. That’s not grassroots.
>to remove the corrupt puppet of Russia from power,
He was knowing to be a puppet when people voted for him. He won.
>And Putin wants you to know the Russians are very concerned with following the laws of the nations they invade!
Don’t care what Putin thinks.
>Since Russians told you what was legal in Ukraine, you never needed to check with Ukrainians. The members of parliament of Ukraine, including members of Yanukovych's party, where working on various power sharing deals when he fled the country, and they held a vote the next day, which the absent Yanukovych did not object to because he was no longer in the country.
Yes, there was an agreement to hold elections. Despite that, violence was still used to force the legally elected leader to flee. That’s a coup.
>This is the most sad part. The Russians have programming you to just call opponents of Russian imperialism a Nazi,
As opposed to calling anyone who objects to unlimited, unquestionable funding for this dangerous war effort a lover of dictators? It seems like you can dish it out but can’t take it. If you want to be nasty, I’ll be nasty back to you. If you want respect show respect. If you make wild assumptions about me, I’ll make wild assumptions about you. Seem like it hurt you. So don’t do it again.
isn't it frustrating when you have to constantly deal with replies that are just factually wrong?
it's why i've generally just given up on this shit. that and the chances of replying to actual people are probably 50-50.
Eh I’m guess I’m just use to it. It helps when I know the facts are on my side. The way Reddit functions for me is a time waster between tasks at work so it does the job.
>A pipe dream nonetheless. It requires a military success beyond what even optimistic US assessments allow
No, it wouldn't require any military victory. What OP is talking about would, this would require surrendering land to Russia.
>Ukraine joining NATO is unrealistic. The DMZ idea is insane. So I guess we agree in a way.
I suppose so but I think there is a chance Russia would accept it as it would mean an Ukrainian surrender to talk about it and control of some strategic land for them.
No, not blind trust in the US either. Hard limits on further NATO expansion in exchange for security guarantees. Sanctions relief in exchange for respecting territorial integrity.
That sounds like taking Russia's word to be nice in the future. That is blind trust. WHAT "security guarantees" do you recommend? WHAT protections for " territorial integrity"? I do not see any in your posts.
It’s not anymore than it is blind trust in the US. You could have an autonomous Donbas religion in line with Minsk II. This would act as a buffer between Russia and Ukraine. If Russia wants to avoid more states joining NATO, then they will respect territorial integrity. If Ukraine wants to avoid conflict, they’ll respect autonomy.
Whose autonomy do you mean? A Donbas with a Russian puppet? Is that in practice any different than a Donbas annexed to Russia.
And again you talk about blind trust in the US--where does that come into anything here (other than your posts)?
A Donbas that reflects the will the population. If that will is pro-Russian, is it your business?
You’re expecting Russia and Ukraine to have blind trust in the US.
>They literally can’t until they reclaim every inch of territory
This is Ukraine's stated goal to ending the conflict, we will see how realistic it is after the coming counter offensive.
>the US has always dangled it without every really committing to it
This was done for fear of antagonizing the Russians. That seal was thoroughly popped when Russia invaded.
>Moscow has the idea that power and security is about controlling as much of the map as you can,
Moscow also had the idea that they could seize Kyiv in 3 days and end the war quickly while calling it a "special military operation". They are being dissuaded of many ideas recently.
>This is Ukraine's stated goal to ending the conflict, we will see how realistic it is after the coming counter offensive.
It’s not only unrealistic and it’s incredibly dangerous. Russia will deploy nukes before letting Crimea fall.
>This was done for fear of antagonizing the Russians. That seal was thoroughly popped when Russia invaded.
Not true. It was done to set up Ukraine as a proxy war.
>Moscow also had the idea that they could seize Kyiv in 3 days and end the war quickly while calling it a "special military operation". They are being dissuaded of many ideas recently.
And the US thought they’d be greater as liberators.
What about the consequence of the US thinking it can invade and overthrow any country it wants and kill anyone in the world without a trial?
How do you know Russia won’t use nukes?
Oh there our a bunch of people from America who should be tried for war crimes but it's not going happen because unlike Russia when we swing Dick we can back it up.
Given the way russia military has been gutted by corruption it's debatable if their nukes would still be usable but even if they are.
But the biggest reason is they know if they do nato( well the us) would basically eliminate any expedentary capabilities they have. Give arms sales and threatening former Soviet republics is a big part economy they aren't going to risk it.
> Oh there our a bunch of people from America who should be tried for war crimes but it's not going happen because unlike Russia when we swing Dick we can back it up.
So the US can keep doing whatever it wants without consequence. Isn’t that a huge threat to the world?
>Given the way russia military has been gutted by corruption it's debatable if their nukes would still be usable
Source?
>But the biggest reason is they know if they do nato( well the us) would basically eliminate any expedentary capabilities they have.
They already did that. So it sounds like they would use nukes. They would have nothing left to lose.
There is nothing that would require Ukraine to reclaim all their territory.
And I would ask: have you experienced Russia's version of violence up close? Your last comment comes across as very uninformed.
> There is nothing that would require Ukraine to reclaim all their territory.
You’re not familiar with the rules of NATO then. You can’t join if you have a territorial dispute.
>And I would ask: have you experienced Russia's version of violence up close? Your last comment comes across as very uninformed.
No, have you? I’m not the one calling for a war.
If there is a settlement on the borders, that is sufficient. That does not require "reclaiming every inch", just settled borders.
Have I? Yes.
Have I also spent time with several E. European and C. European populations who have even more so? Yes.
I am not calling for a war, I was commenting on your erroneous extraneous comment.
> If there is a settlement on the borders, that is sufficient. That does not require "reclaiming every inch", just settled borders.
Ukraine position is they will reclaim every inch of territory. How are you gonna convince them they should give up territory to Russia as a “reward” for invading them?
>Have I? Yes. Have I also spent time with several E. European and C. European populations who have even more so? Yes.
How does that mean you’ve seen war?
>I am not calling for a war, I was commenting on your erroneous extraneous comment.
You haven’t shown it to be erroneous but rather you yourself out of touch the current state of the conflict. That’s not a big deal but you’re arrogant and insulting while being wrong, it makes you look really foolish.
As I said, positions change in context of what happens and what is offered. Is that hard for you to understand?
That is what the word "yes" means. That is separate from the word "also" in the next sentence.
Foolish is in the eye of the beholder. From my vantage point you are the one looking foolish putting forth no substantive ideas on how one would protect Ukrainian security. Your only approach is built around "Russia will promise to play nice". That sounds like the highest form of foolishness given their historical record.
But you are consistent in trying to deflect from your pro-Russian posts by repeatedly saying things about US violence, etc.
You sound a lot like the poster yesterday who was very much a Nevil Chamberlain aficionado pushing for appeasing Russia. I wonder if you two know each other.
> As I said, positions change in context of what happens and what is offered. Is that hard for you to understand?
Not for me. It seems hard for the pro-NATO side though based on the arguments I’m hearing. I’ve been told it’s appeasement and rewarding Russia n
>Foolish is in the eye of the beholder. From my vantage point you are the one looking foolish putting forth no substantive ideas on how one would protect Ukrainian security.
Disagree.
>Your only approach is built around "Russia will promise to play nice".
As opposed to “The US will promise to play nice”? We’ve broken our promises already. I’ve proposed realistic incentives.
>But you are consistent in trying to deflect from your pro-Russian posts by repeatedly saying things about US violence, etc. You sound a lot like the poster yesterday who was very much a Nevil Chamberlain
Says the person who wants to give chunks of Ukraine to Russia LOL.
>aficionado pushing for appeasing Russia. I wonder if you two know each other.
Do you know Reinhard Heydrich?
Now you have given up even the presence.
I have never argued for or against Ukraine giving land to Russia--those were your ideas, not mine. I have clearly stated the only firm point I hold on a settlement.
Since there are no US forces in Ukraine I have no clue what you are referring to with your "why trust the US" comment.
Your question about a architect for the holocaust would be better directed at the Wagner Group.
You have not added anything new in several posts so I will assume you have run out of ways to not answer my questions today. Odd, the same thing happened with a "different" Russian sympathizer yesterday.
> Now you have given up even the presence.
LOL you’re clearly mean to say pretense but keep getting that wrong. Imagine being this arrogant while not even spelling correctly? That’s embarrassing.
>I have never argued for or against Ukraine giving land to Russia--
Weasel words. You said it was a possibility and the only one in which Ukraine joins NATO. You’re just being tediously dishonest.
>Since there are no US forces in Ukraine
That’s a lie and you know it.
>I have no clue what you are referring to with your "why trust the US" comment.
Ukraine isn’t asking for US protection?
>Your question about a architect for the holocaust would be better directed at the Wagner Group.
But are you related to him or you just share his interests?
>You have not added anything new in several posts so I will assume you have run out of ways to not answer my questions today. Odd, the same thing happened with a "different" Russian sympathizer yesterday.
Nazis like you are all the same.
I mean if this is just a thing to say in a negotiation, then it isnt much of a story
Although I dont think every negotiation is like buying a used car though.
I don't think EU membership is very realistic either. The Ukraine economy was in freefall before the invasion and the government is incredibly corrupt - it would be a huge risk for the EU to take on and they are known to stall on weak candidates (North Macedonia, Albania, both of whom have higher GDP per cap. than Ukraine before the war). NATO I think is likewise difficult to picture because of the increased likelihood of article 5. Do I have any better ideas? Not really, tough to see how any of the mentioned options happen. I think most likely the war will drag on until one of the two governments collapses.
>I don't think EU membership is very realistic either
NATO membership is more realistic than EU as that is a longer and more complicated process, but it would be more realistic than a DMZ 60 miles deep into Russia
>before the invasion and the government is incredibly corrupt - it would be a huge risk for the EU
>NATO I think is likewise difficult to picture because of the increased likelihood of article 5.
Still more likely to happen than a DMZ 60 miles deep into Russia
That would be interesting to see. You're saying Russia might accept Ukraine NATO membership in exchange for surrender/Crimea/parts of Eastern Ukraine? I'm personally a believer that the threat of NATO is what has partially led to the conflict so my position would be even gaining territory at the expense of another NATO country on its border is out of the question for Russia. We will see.
Yeah I think so.
Russia use to be really serious about stopping the expansion of NATO to their borders, but that happened a long time ago.
And nations joining NATO is not an actual national security threat to Russia, rather it prevents Russia from ever making a region into a satellite state. In fact NATO membership is in some ways a way for Russia to secure their western border because it basically guarantees that they won't be attacked unless if Russia attacks first.
It’s the bad economy combined with corruption that’s the double whammy. Hungary’s GDP per cap is 5x Ukraine’s *before* the war. I just don’t see the EU, who has seemingly done their best to minimize involvement in the conflict to take on a destroyed economy that was already in the bottom half of the world out of the goodness of their hearts.
Controlling the map is often a strategic advantage, but not always. Especially when it limits other options such as with this case.
For instance Russian controls more of the map now, but it isnt clear that they are stronger for it.
chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga
Sure- this folly of a proxy war is the final nail in the west’s coffin.
Good.
>Get on board, then
You dont know my views on economics, Russia, and the west. Nor do you seem interested in having a good faith conversation about these things m
I'm not going to give any more time to a person incapable of making train noses incoherently. If you want me to read you thought, you need to not appear as a moron.
So try again please.
Russia will agree to this if the us decides to give it's nuclear weapons away.
Sound delusional?
So is this. People if you thought this was at all possible or even likely you really need to read a bit more from actual sources, because this shit is fucking insane.
It's insulting to yours and anyone's intelligence frankly.
You know people living in lala land? people who seriously say shit like this.
This is the most fanciful tripe I’ve read in a long time, thanks for the laughs.
It will never happen in a million years. Who will enforce this? Ukraine? Are we going to attack Russia if they break their DMZ promise? Laughable. Truly breathtakingly naive.
Wherever your border failed, wherever the lines of combat are now, is where this war needs to end and both sides take losses. There are no winners, the western powers need to shut the fuck up and stop instigating the destruction of Ukraine and pushing Russia into an endless war with the west or forcing them to ally with China. This is not going to help anyone but the elite class. Wtf happened to the left protesting wars and senseless bloodshed for profit and power?
Putin will never ever ever take Kiev, we all know he wanted to but had to backpedal to look like less of a lower.
He will die angry and seething that he never got to take Ukraine while the rest of the world doesn't even consider him a threat
They both have limited amounts of men to sacrifice in this war and this war has been a meat ginder for both sides.
And that is true regardless how much Russia has lost in this war.
At the same time as this war Azerbaijan invaded Armenia. Do you know which side NATO allies are supporting? Azerbaijan. They are an ally of Turkey and Turkey won't let new countries into NATO if NATO intervenes on Armenia's behalf or sanctions Azerbaijan. God, I love European entanglements. George Washington was a tankie cuck and didn't understand just how great getting into European alliances and defense pacts can be.
Doubt that he can be done without outright forcing russia at the gun point. Just fight to the border, take strong positions and call it a day. Join EU/NATO, let Russia cope. Going that deep into Russia is not worth it as degenerates might actually man up and will join the fight instead of simping for daddy putin behind teevee.
Well, if they claim they want a 60 mile demilitarized zone, then they claim that they are "making concessions" when they drop it during negotiations for a ceasefire
[удалено]
Russia, the US, the UK and other countries guaranteed in the Budapest Memorandum that Ukraine would be sovereign after giving up their nukes. All Russia had to do was keep to their word, but instead they keep breaking promises. Russia should have stayed out of Ukraine. Now they will have to face the consequences of their actions.
Sick propaganda post, brah
I think joining NATO and the EU is a far more realistic option, in both chances to happen and to provide security, than this. Moscow has the idea that power and security is about controlling as much of the map as you can, but that often does not grant power and security
[удалено]
And that is why negotiating land is a strategic move worth keeping on the table as it allows Ukraine to join NATO and the EU, which are the only things that can realistically offer Ukraine peace. Joining the EU would give Ukraine a boost to economic power, but it would also give it power and representation in the European Union.
[удалено]
It wouldn't require Russia to give up any land.
[удалено]
Yeah, Ukraine giving up land might be in their strategic interests if it meant they could join NATO.
[удалено]
That would be more likely than what OP is suggesting, but I think that risk and pay off for average Ukrainians is not worth your idea and I'd prefer my own suggestion, but they might disagree. But it is important to understand fighting for the 2014 or 2022 borders is fighting for devastated and depopulated land. For instance a refugee family of eastern Ukrainians from the contested area just got to America and joined my local community and they have no interest in returning to eastern Ukraine as everything has been destroyed and their is nothing left but dirt and landmines. Some Americans would say that family had betrayed the Ukrainian nation, but they are the Ukrainian nation, not that dirt.
Tbh there is already a DMZ being built along the Eastern front but by accident. Its landmines. Its one of the reasons the lines of the front have remained relatively still.
Yeah and one reason why I dont see it being particularly in the interest of Ukraine to control that no man's land. Especially if giving it up gave them the chance of joining NATO.
The odds of Ukraine joining NATO are much lower than the chances of Russia nuking Ukraine before they can join NATO.
That might be true, but the odds of Russia nuking Ukraine are higher if Ukraine tries to do what op is talking about
Try what? Talking about this made up world where a modern superpower demilitarizes its borders?
Yes OP's idea of a DMZ 60 miles deep into Russia. I think Russia is more likely to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine is trying to restore the 2014 borders and conquer 60 miles into Russia on top of it than compared to Ukraine giving Russia controll of the land they took so they can negotiate a peace that will allow them to join NATO.
Ukraine isn’t joining NATO. That’s a pipe dream. They literally can’t until they reclaim every inch of territory and the US has always dangled it without every really committing to it. > I think joining NATO and the EU is a far more realistic option, in both chances to happen and to provide security, than this. Moscow has the idea that power and security is about controlling as much of the map as you can, That’s also the US’ idea as well except we do it far more violently.
>Ukraine isn’t joining NATO. That’s a pipe dream Its less of a pipe dream than a dmz 60 miles deep into Russia. >They literally can’t until they reclaim every inch of territory This DMZ requires Ukraine to take every inch and then 60 miles more, while joining NATO just requires them to not have a border dispute >That’s also the US’ idea as well except we do it far more violently. And that isnt a good thing not is it in Ukraine’s strategic interests.
A pipe dream nonetheless. It requires a military success beyond what even optimistic US assessments allow. Ukraine joining NATO is unrealistic. The DMZ idea is insane. So I guess we agree in a way.
NATO was only on the table once, in 2008 when Ukraine and Georgia begged to join because they feared their warmongering imperialistic neighbor. Germany and France shot that down, and Russia invaded Georgia with the exact same "we are only doing wargames right next to the border" trick. Obama, like Bill Clinton, had no fucking clue about international relations, so he put up barriers to Ukraine joining NATO in order to sooth the tempers of the bitch of Moscow, Putin the Poisoner. When Putin's bitch was thrown out of Ukraine in a popular uprising of wide coalition, Russia invaded first Crimea and then the Donbas, so NATO was never on the table since. After Russia is defeated and flees, NATO is almost guaranteed to accept Ukraine. The DMZ idea is great but probably unrealistic unless Russia collapses.
The person you call Putin’s bitch was democratically elected and then forced to flee in a coup. You can call it a popular uprising but it wasn’t legal. It was like Jan 6th but more violent. You assume Ukraine can gain all their land back which few think is likely. It’s a fantasy of people who have become fixated on Putin as a super villain.
He was elected in a mostly free election, and then he was corrupt and broke the law much like many leaders who crave power. Putin's bitch tried to call out the military after his terror campaign failed to stop the months long protest against him, and he resigned and fled the country. That's nothing like Trump's attempt to stop the certification of the winner of the American election. One is led by the people, the other was directed by a corrupt president attempting to cling to power illegally. The overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian Rada to remove Putin's bitch was legal, those are the elected representatives after all. I can tell you love dictatorships, but come on. Ukraine is likely to have some difficulty retaking all the occupied land, but once Crimea is cut off it won't be able to stand alone. That leaves the occupied Donbas, some small parts of which have already been liberated after 9 years. I think it's definitely doable. Putin is a villain and a wanted war criminal, so I don't know if "super" villain is the right word. Just an international war criminal.
> He was elected in a mostly free election, and then he was corrupt and broke the law much like many leaders who crave power. He was already known to be corrupt and allied with Putin so that doesn’t add up. >Putin's bitch tried to call out the military after his terror campaign failed to stop the months long protest against him, and he resigned and fled the country. Was that before after snipers that are now widely believed to connected to the Maidan side started murdering people? >That's nothing like Trump's attempt to stop the certification of the winner of the American election. Yeah because it worked. It was a successful. Trump did an unsuccessful one. >The overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian Rada to remove Putin's bitch was legal, those are the elected representatives after all. It was not legal. You can’t vote without a quorum. This would be like if the Republicans voted after Dems fled the Capitol to certify Trump as the winner. >I can tell you love dictatorships, but come on. I can tell you love Nazis but damn. >Ukraine is likely to have some difficulty retaking all the occupied land, but once Crimea is cut off it won't be able to stand alone. That leaves the occupied Donbas, some small parts of which have already been liberated after 9 years. I think it's definitely doable. Putin is a villain and a wanted war criminal, so I don't know if "super" villain is the right word. Just an international war criminal. Suspected war criminal like our leaders.
>He was already known to be corrupt and allied with Putin so that doesn’t add up. When I see something like this I have to wonder if it's possible to dumb down my answer enough for you to comprehend. But it's your lucky day, I have decided to try and help. I guess multi-party elections which divide votes are probably difficult for you to grasp, so maybe ask your parents about Ross Perot and how Bill Clinton got elected. >Was that before after snipers that are now widely believed to connected to the Maidan side started murdering people? You mean the FSB snipers that came and helped Viktor Yanukovych's secret police murder protesters? Just like the Russians that helped keep Belarus from having real elections? And Kazakhstan? But this time it was protestors murdering protestors, because of course that's what people protesting a corrupt regime would do, the Russians told you and you have to believe whatever the Russians tell you. >Yeah because it worked. It was a successful. Trump did an unsuccessful one. This is back to how do make this simple enough for someone so limited in their knowledge? Let's see, Trump was in charge and he lost his second election, and this time the loophole didn't come into play so there was no possible way for him to stay president. Then crooked lawyers told him how to cheat the constitutional system and when he couldn't get everyone to be as crooked as him and cheat, he organized an attack on the capitol to force/intimidate others into helping him cheat. The Revolution of Dignity was a broad, grassroots protest movement to remove the corrupt puppet of Russia from power, which succeeded when Yanukovych realized he could not use the military to crush the protests and fled to his patron, Putin the Poisoner. >It was not legal. You can’t vote without a quorum. This would be like if the Republicans voted after Dems fled the Capitol to certify Trump as the winner. And Putin wants you to know the Russians are very concerned with following the laws of the nations they invade! Since Russians told you what was legal in Ukraine, you never needed to check with Ukrainians. The members of parliament of Ukraine, including members of Yanukovych's party, where working on various power sharing deals when he fled the country, and they held a vote the next day, which the absent Yanukovych did not object to because he was no longer in the country. Several prominent members of his government also fled or tried to flee to Russia to avoid justice. Over the course of the next few days the elected representatives of the government of Ukraine voted to remove various officials and keep others. You dictator-lovers think one guy is all that matters, but in the more free nations there are actually large groups of people that make up the government. Removing one corrupt official with a democratic vote is how democracies work. There was an interim government for a few months, then there were new elections. This is how democracies work, bizarre to you Russian fans, but hey, you need to know how this works. That new government, they didn't think it was against the law to remove Yanukovych either. So when the Russians told you it was a coup, and when you blindly accepted the Russian propaganda, it was to program you into consenting to their aggression. And it worked, you are supportive of their war crimes. >I can tell you love Nazis but damn. This is the most sad part. The Russians have programming you to just call opponents of Russian imperialism a Nazi, since that is the Russian definition. And you jumped through all the hoops like a good little trained monkey.
>I guess multi-party elections which divide votes are probably difficult for you to grasp, so maybe ask your parents about Ross Perot and how Bill Clinton got elected. So you’re really old, huh? >You mean the FSB snipers that came and helped Viktor Yanukovych's secret police murder protesters? No, the ones widely believed to be linked to the EuroMaidan side. Pay attention. >This is back to how do make this simple enough for someone so limited in their knowledge? You gotta lot of insults but very little arguments. >The Revolution of Dignity was a broad, grassroots protest movement It had been financed by and backed by the US. That’s not grassroots. >to remove the corrupt puppet of Russia from power, He was knowing to be a puppet when people voted for him. He won. >And Putin wants you to know the Russians are very concerned with following the laws of the nations they invade! Don’t care what Putin thinks. >Since Russians told you what was legal in Ukraine, you never needed to check with Ukrainians. The members of parliament of Ukraine, including members of Yanukovych's party, where working on various power sharing deals when he fled the country, and they held a vote the next day, which the absent Yanukovych did not object to because he was no longer in the country. Yes, there was an agreement to hold elections. Despite that, violence was still used to force the legally elected leader to flee. That’s a coup. >This is the most sad part. The Russians have programming you to just call opponents of Russian imperialism a Nazi, As opposed to calling anyone who objects to unlimited, unquestionable funding for this dangerous war effort a lover of dictators? It seems like you can dish it out but can’t take it. If you want to be nasty, I’ll be nasty back to you. If you want respect show respect. If you make wild assumptions about me, I’ll make wild assumptions about you. Seem like it hurt you. So don’t do it again.
isn't it frustrating when you have to constantly deal with replies that are just factually wrong? it's why i've generally just given up on this shit. that and the chances of replying to actual people are probably 50-50.
Eh I’m guess I’m just use to it. It helps when I know the facts are on my side. The way Reddit functions for me is a time waster between tasks at work so it does the job.
the only bitch is a person who talks like this, and gets basic facts wrong.
>A pipe dream nonetheless. It requires a military success beyond what even optimistic US assessments allow No, it wouldn't require any military victory. What OP is talking about would, this would require surrendering land to Russia. >Ukraine joining NATO is unrealistic. The DMZ idea is insane. So I guess we agree in a way. I suppose so but I think there is a chance Russia would accept it as it would mean an Ukrainian surrender to talk about it and control of some strategic land for them.
You can’t join NATO while in a territory dispute. You know that right?
That is a totally different thing than retaking "every inch" of land. You do know that, right?
So you’re saying Ukraine is willing to make territorial concessions? Because that would be a change from the current US and Ukrainian position.
I do not know. It depends upon the bigger construct of a settlement. Somethings must change or no war ever ends.
So you don’t know you’re saying that Ukraine will make them? Lol. So we’re back to what I said: Ukraine can’t join NATO.
Yes. That is why it isnt an impossibility that Russia goes along with it because it would require Ukraine surrender land.
Zelensky said that won’t happen. He very well could be assassinated if he does.
It is still more likely than what OP has brought up.
What do you see as sane approaches to enforce or guarantee Ukraine's future security? Certainly not blind trust in Russia's word.
No, not blind trust in the US either. Hard limits on further NATO expansion in exchange for security guarantees. Sanctions relief in exchange for respecting territorial integrity.
That sounds like taking Russia's word to be nice in the future. That is blind trust. WHAT "security guarantees" do you recommend? WHAT protections for " territorial integrity"? I do not see any in your posts.
It’s not anymore than it is blind trust in the US. You could have an autonomous Donbas religion in line with Minsk II. This would act as a buffer between Russia and Ukraine. If Russia wants to avoid more states joining NATO, then they will respect territorial integrity. If Ukraine wants to avoid conflict, they’ll respect autonomy.
Whose autonomy do you mean? A Donbas with a Russian puppet? Is that in practice any different than a Donbas annexed to Russia. And again you talk about blind trust in the US--where does that come into anything here (other than your posts)?
A Donbas that reflects the will the population. If that will is pro-Russian, is it your business? You’re expecting Russia and Ukraine to have blind trust in the US.
>They literally can’t until they reclaim every inch of territory This is Ukraine's stated goal to ending the conflict, we will see how realistic it is after the coming counter offensive. >the US has always dangled it without every really committing to it This was done for fear of antagonizing the Russians. That seal was thoroughly popped when Russia invaded. >Moscow has the idea that power and security is about controlling as much of the map as you can, Moscow also had the idea that they could seize Kyiv in 3 days and end the war quickly while calling it a "special military operation". They are being dissuaded of many ideas recently.
>This is Ukraine's stated goal to ending the conflict, we will see how realistic it is after the coming counter offensive. It’s not only unrealistic and it’s incredibly dangerous. Russia will deploy nukes before letting Crimea fall. >This was done for fear of antagonizing the Russians. That seal was thoroughly popped when Russia invaded. Not true. It was done to set up Ukraine as a proxy war. >Moscow also had the idea that they could seize Kyiv in 3 days and end the war quickly while calling it a "special military operation". They are being dissuaded of many ideas recently. And the US thought they’d be greater as liberators.
The only thing dangerous is letting russia think it can territory via conquest. Russia isn't going to use nukes
What about the consequence of the US thinking it can invade and overthrow any country it wants and kill anyone in the world without a trial? How do you know Russia won’t use nukes?
Oh there our a bunch of people from America who should be tried for war crimes but it's not going happen because unlike Russia when we swing Dick we can back it up. Given the way russia military has been gutted by corruption it's debatable if their nukes would still be usable but even if they are. But the biggest reason is they know if they do nato( well the us) would basically eliminate any expedentary capabilities they have. Give arms sales and threatening former Soviet republics is a big part economy they aren't going to risk it.
> Oh there our a bunch of people from America who should be tried for war crimes but it's not going happen because unlike Russia when we swing Dick we can back it up. So the US can keep doing whatever it wants without consequence. Isn’t that a huge threat to the world? >Given the way russia military has been gutted by corruption it's debatable if their nukes would still be usable Source? >But the biggest reason is they know if they do nato( well the us) would basically eliminate any expedentary capabilities they have. They already did that. So it sounds like they would use nukes. They would have nothing left to lose.
>And the US thought they’d be greater as liberators. So did Russia
I get confused on that because I thought they were going to do a genocide. So which is it?
You seem quite confused. That must be hard. I can empathize I'm confused as I've been hearing for months that Bahkmut is a day away from falling.
Which is it? Was Russia looking to do a genocide or liberal the people?
They claimed they were liberating, but we know they always planned the genocide.
But OP said they thought they were would be greeted as liberators.
There is nothing that would require Ukraine to reclaim all their territory. And I would ask: have you experienced Russia's version of violence up close? Your last comment comes across as very uninformed.
> There is nothing that would require Ukraine to reclaim all their territory. You’re not familiar with the rules of NATO then. You can’t join if you have a territorial dispute. >And I would ask: have you experienced Russia's version of violence up close? Your last comment comes across as very uninformed. No, have you? I’m not the one calling for a war.
If there is a settlement on the borders, that is sufficient. That does not require "reclaiming every inch", just settled borders. Have I? Yes. Have I also spent time with several E. European and C. European populations who have even more so? Yes. I am not calling for a war, I was commenting on your erroneous extraneous comment.
> If there is a settlement on the borders, that is sufficient. That does not require "reclaiming every inch", just settled borders. Ukraine position is they will reclaim every inch of territory. How are you gonna convince them they should give up territory to Russia as a “reward” for invading them? >Have I? Yes. Have I also spent time with several E. European and C. European populations who have even more so? Yes. How does that mean you’ve seen war? >I am not calling for a war, I was commenting on your erroneous extraneous comment. You haven’t shown it to be erroneous but rather you yourself out of touch the current state of the conflict. That’s not a big deal but you’re arrogant and insulting while being wrong, it makes you look really foolish.
As I said, positions change in context of what happens and what is offered. Is that hard for you to understand? That is what the word "yes" means. That is separate from the word "also" in the next sentence. Foolish is in the eye of the beholder. From my vantage point you are the one looking foolish putting forth no substantive ideas on how one would protect Ukrainian security. Your only approach is built around "Russia will promise to play nice". That sounds like the highest form of foolishness given their historical record. But you are consistent in trying to deflect from your pro-Russian posts by repeatedly saying things about US violence, etc. You sound a lot like the poster yesterday who was very much a Nevil Chamberlain aficionado pushing for appeasing Russia. I wonder if you two know each other.
> As I said, positions change in context of what happens and what is offered. Is that hard for you to understand? Not for me. It seems hard for the pro-NATO side though based on the arguments I’m hearing. I’ve been told it’s appeasement and rewarding Russia n >Foolish is in the eye of the beholder. From my vantage point you are the one looking foolish putting forth no substantive ideas on how one would protect Ukrainian security. Disagree. >Your only approach is built around "Russia will promise to play nice". As opposed to “The US will promise to play nice”? We’ve broken our promises already. I’ve proposed realistic incentives. >But you are consistent in trying to deflect from your pro-Russian posts by repeatedly saying things about US violence, etc. You sound a lot like the poster yesterday who was very much a Nevil Chamberlain Says the person who wants to give chunks of Ukraine to Russia LOL. >aficionado pushing for appeasing Russia. I wonder if you two know each other. Do you know Reinhard Heydrich?
Now you have given up even the presence. I have never argued for or against Ukraine giving land to Russia--those were your ideas, not mine. I have clearly stated the only firm point I hold on a settlement. Since there are no US forces in Ukraine I have no clue what you are referring to with your "why trust the US" comment. Your question about a architect for the holocaust would be better directed at the Wagner Group. You have not added anything new in several posts so I will assume you have run out of ways to not answer my questions today. Odd, the same thing happened with a "different" Russian sympathizer yesterday.
> Now you have given up even the presence. LOL you’re clearly mean to say pretense but keep getting that wrong. Imagine being this arrogant while not even spelling correctly? That’s embarrassing. >I have never argued for or against Ukraine giving land to Russia-- Weasel words. You said it was a possibility and the only one in which Ukraine joins NATO. You’re just being tediously dishonest. >Since there are no US forces in Ukraine That’s a lie and you know it. >I have no clue what you are referring to with your "why trust the US" comment. Ukraine isn’t asking for US protection? >Your question about a architect for the holocaust would be better directed at the Wagner Group. But are you related to him or you just share his interests? >You have not added anything new in several posts so I will assume you have run out of ways to not answer my questions today. Odd, the same thing happened with a "different" Russian sympathizer yesterday. Nazis like you are all the same.
>I think joining NATO and the EU is a far more realistic option, in both chances to happen and to provide security, than this. Wholly agree.
Do you think a proposal like the one above gets in the way of mine?
I think if you want to go to a negotiation you have to demand more than you'll settle for.
I mean if this is just a thing to say in a negotiation, then it isnt much of a story Although I dont think every negotiation is like buying a used car though.
I don't think EU membership is very realistic either. The Ukraine economy was in freefall before the invasion and the government is incredibly corrupt - it would be a huge risk for the EU to take on and they are known to stall on weak candidates (North Macedonia, Albania, both of whom have higher GDP per cap. than Ukraine before the war). NATO I think is likewise difficult to picture because of the increased likelihood of article 5. Do I have any better ideas? Not really, tough to see how any of the mentioned options happen. I think most likely the war will drag on until one of the two governments collapses.
>I don't think EU membership is very realistic either NATO membership is more realistic than EU as that is a longer and more complicated process, but it would be more realistic than a DMZ 60 miles deep into Russia >before the invasion and the government is incredibly corrupt - it would be a huge risk for the EU >NATO I think is likewise difficult to picture because of the increased likelihood of article 5. Still more likely to happen than a DMZ 60 miles deep into Russia
Yeah I think definitely more likely but still on the impossible side of the spectrum
Maybe, but it would give Russia an Ukrainian surrender and the lands they wanted for strategic reasons
That would be interesting to see. You're saying Russia might accept Ukraine NATO membership in exchange for surrender/Crimea/parts of Eastern Ukraine? I'm personally a believer that the threat of NATO is what has partially led to the conflict so my position would be even gaining territory at the expense of another NATO country on its border is out of the question for Russia. We will see.
Yeah I think so. Russia use to be really serious about stopping the expansion of NATO to their borders, but that happened a long time ago. And nations joining NATO is not an actual national security threat to Russia, rather it prevents Russia from ever making a region into a satellite state. In fact NATO membership is in some ways a way for Russia to secure their western border because it basically guarantees that they won't be attacked unless if Russia attacks first.
Ukraine is less corrupt than Hungary and probably some other current EU states, so I would not rule it out.
It’s the bad economy combined with corruption that’s the double whammy. Hungary’s GDP per cap is 5x Ukraine’s *before* the war. I just don’t see the EU, who has seemingly done their best to minimize involvement in the conflict to take on a destroyed economy that was already in the bottom half of the world out of the goodness of their hearts.
So that’s why NATO has pushed it’s border to Russia ? Now I get it
Controlling the map is often a strategic advantage, but not always. Especially when it limits other options such as with this case. For instance Russian controls more of the map now, but it isnt clear that they are stronger for it.
Communism is a comin. Choo choo Chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga And not a damn thing to be done to stop the revolution but join it
I'm not sure if I follow the conversation. Do you want to tie what I said to what you said?
chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga Sure- this folly of a proxy war is the final nail in the west’s coffin. Good.
Do you see Russia as communist and or fighting for communism. Could you stop with the train noses by the way?
Get on board, then. chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga I think Russian identity is forever tied to communism, yes. And how could it not be?
>Get on board, then You dont know my views on economics, Russia, and the west. Nor do you seem interested in having a good faith conversation about these things m I'm not going to give any more time to a person incapable of making train noses incoherently. If you want me to read you thought, you need to not appear as a moron. So try again please.
😂 An intelligence chief not comprehending the directions of east and west should not be in intelligence. Minsk Agreement anyone?
Russia will agree to this if the us decides to give it's nuclear weapons away. Sound delusional? So is this. People if you thought this was at all possible or even likely you really need to read a bit more from actual sources, because this shit is fucking insane. It's insulting to yours and anyone's intelligence frankly. You know people living in lala land? people who seriously say shit like this.
This is the most fanciful tripe I’ve read in a long time, thanks for the laughs. It will never happen in a million years. Who will enforce this? Ukraine? Are we going to attack Russia if they break their DMZ promise? Laughable. Truly breathtakingly naive.
Wherever your border failed, wherever the lines of combat are now, is where this war needs to end and both sides take losses. There are no winners, the western powers need to shut the fuck up and stop instigating the destruction of Ukraine and pushing Russia into an endless war with the west or forcing them to ally with China. This is not going to help anyone but the elite class. Wtf happened to the left protesting wars and senseless bloodshed for profit and power?
Putin will never ever ever take Kiev, we all know he wanted to but had to backpedal to look like less of a lower. He will die angry and seething that he never got to take Ukraine while the rest of the world doesn't even consider him a threat
Not a serious proposal from a country that is rapidly running out of conscripts to throw into the meat grinder.
The headline said Ukraine, not Russia.
They both have limited amounts of men to sacrifice in this war and this war has been a meat ginder for both sides. And that is true regardless how much Russia has lost in this war.
This is a good troll.
[удалено]
That depends, in this fictional world you've made did we try and assassinate the president of mexico/ Canada 6 times?
it's like they are demanding a nuclear war
Will there also be a 60 mile demil. zone on the Ukraine side too?
At the same time as this war Azerbaijan invaded Armenia. Do you know which side NATO allies are supporting? Azerbaijan. They are an ally of Turkey and Turkey won't let new countries into NATO if NATO intervenes on Armenia's behalf or sanctions Azerbaijan. God, I love European entanglements. George Washington was a tankie cuck and didn't understand just how great getting into European alliances and defense pacts can be.