Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Rajma]

The fallacy of “withdrawal before negotiation”.

Firstly, if you are true in your intent to negotiate, post-withdrawal, then that which you are negotiating is the very same thing, from the Russian regime’s point of view, which led to the war in the first instance.

a) NATO

a) Security Agreement.

b) Status of Crimea and Separatist Regions.

That’s the entirety of the Russian side. All three are the same thing.

If, for instance, Russia was to withdraw, what basis do they have, then, for assuming that said withdrawal will ensure the third? None. You cannot possibly insist upon a condition of withdrawal prior to ceasefire when the very means of ceasefire presuppose agreements which cannot come about prior to ceasefire (and negotiations).

It isn’t a truthful position. Whatever the intent, it isn’t a true state.

You can reason it – that is, from the Ukrainian point of view: you invaded us; thus, we cannot speak of ceasefire until you withdraw. But there isn’t merely a Ukrainian point of view in isolation – if that were true, we would have no war in the first place. It merely feeds back into the very tautological state of falsity which ceasefire-to-negotiation is the only means of breaking. That is, it becomes “we invaded because…”, “we don’t care why you invaded or what your concerns are because you invaded”. It’s insane. Only those who wish to exploit this situation – I look at all nations directly or indirectly involved – will perpetuate the idea of “withdrawal before ceasefire” (it is designed very much in the war-as-game mode as a “move”, not a genuine nor honest attempt at resolution).

Victory for Ukraine is ceasefire which leads to peace. There is no other victory which it can achieve. Withdrawal which leads to ceasefire will not happen – the sequence is wrong and intentionally so on the part of those who have designed this talking point. That is, any who preach this line you may judge by the fruit, which is evil, (bad, minimally), just as you judge the Russian invasion itself by the same metric. Ceasefire-which-leads-to-withdrawal-which-leads-to-peace is the only sequence which herein “works”. It is only war-as-game which seeks to play Ukraine off Russia and Russia off a series of other variables; and true, (which is to say, murderously false), in reverse yet overlapping order. It’s nonsense and falsity which would be farce if not for the fact that war-as-game implies rape, murder, torture, and a series of other hells which those playing life as if it were a game do not care about. They may flatter themselves, in state departments around the world, that what they do, in war-as-game, is the remedy but, in truth, it (war economy) is the primary cancer. Worse than cancer, for cancer is natural though terrible whereas war is an unnatural state of affairs which presupposes “choice”.

“Withdrawal before ceasefire”. Those who use it are acting in no one’s interest; not even their own unless they are self-consciously evil. Which, in almost all cases, I doubt.

Except none of the three reasons you have provided were actually behind motives of the Russian invasion unless someone is dumb enough to believe Russian propaganda. The invasion conducted by Russia is solely attributed to nationalistic, genocidal, and imperialistic elements which makes it impossible to achieve a ceasefire before the withdrawal.

 

[Raoul]

The fallacy of “withdrawal before negotiation”.

Firstly, if you are true in your intent to negotiate, post-withdrawal, then that which you are negotiating is the very same thing, from the Russian regime’s point of view, which led to the war in the first instance.

a) NATO

a) Security Agreement.

b) Status of Crimea and Separatist Regions.

That’s the entirety of the Russian side. All three are the same thing.

If, for instance, Russia was to withdraw, what basis do they have, then, for assuming that said withdrawal will ensure the third? None. You cannot possibly insist upon a condition of withdrawal prior to ceasefire when the very means of ceasefire presuppose agreements which cannot come about prior to ceasefire (and negotiations).

It isn’t a truthful position. Whatever the intent, it isn’t a true state.

You can reason it – that is, from the Ukrainian point of view: you invaded us; thus, we cannot speak of ceasefire until you withdraw. But there isn’t merely a Ukrainian point of view in isolation – if that were true, we would have no war in the first place. It merely feeds back into the very tautological state of falsity which ceasefire-to-negotiation is the only means of breaking. That is, it becomes “we invaded because…”, “we don’t care why you invaded or what your concerns are because you invaded”. It’s insane. Only those who wish to exploit this situation – I look at all nations directly or indirectly involved – will perpetuate the idea of “withdrawal before ceasefire” (it is designed very much in the war-as-game mode as a “move”, not a genuine nor honest attempt at resolution).

Victory for Ukraine is ceasefire which leads to peace. There is no other victory which it can achieve. Withdrawal which leads to ceasefire will not happen – the sequence is wrong and intentionally so on the part of those who have designed this talking point. That is, any who preach this line you may judge by the fruit, which is evil, (bad, minimally), just as you judge the Russian invasion itself by the same metric. Ceasefire-which-leads-to-withdrawal-which-leads-to-peace is the only sequence which herein “works”. It is only war-as-game which seeks to play Ukraine off Russia and Russia off a series of other variables; and true, (which is to say, murderously false), in reverse yet overlapping order. It’s nonsense and falsity which would be farce if not for the fact that war-as-game implies rape, murder, torture, and a series of other hells which those playing life as if it were a game do not care about. They may flatter themselves, in state departments around the world, that what they do, in war-as-game, is the remedy but, in truth, it (war economy) is the primary cancer. Worse than cancer, for cancer is natural though terrible whereas war is an unnatural state of affairs which presupposes “choice”.

“Withdrawal before ceasefire”. Those who use it are acting in no one’s interest; not even their own unless they are self-consciously evil. Which, in almost all cases, I doubt.

I think the only way either side will negotiate will be if it’s on their preferred terms, which won’t happen until one side believes it has exhausted it’s military resources to fight to where negotiations become the lesser of two evils.

It’s critical therefore that Ukraine make tangible gains to reclaim as much territory as possible, and possibly everything except Crimea, at which point Putin would be left with a choice of only losing Donbas or the more comprehensive domestic humiliation of having lost both Donbas and Crimea.

The Ukrainians on the other hand, aren’t likely to negotiate until they believe they have all their territories back, which suggests we’re not going to see a cessation of hostilities anytime soon.

 

[The Firestarter]

Except none of the three reasons you have provided were actually behind motives of the Russian invasion unless someone is dumb enough to believe Russian propaganda. The invasion conducted by Russia is solely attributed to nationalistic, genocidal, and imperialistic elements which makes it impossible to achieve a ceasefire before the withdrawal.

This. Taking the "official" reasons of the regime in good faith is braindead at best.

 

[neverdie]

The invasion conducted by Russia is solely attributed to nationalistic, genocidal, and imperialistic elements which makes it impossible to achieve a ceasefire before the withdrawal.

The Catholics said the same about the Protestants in Northern Ireland. They had to let go of that "they are evil and we are without all blame, even if be assymmetrical in order" mentality so that peace could come. It was after negotiations that arms were forever laid down and decomissioning began. Not prior.

The same was true in South Africa. Mandela sought reconciliation though all you could say of Russia could be said of the Apartheid South African regime, too.

It's not just that I disagree with the statement you make, it's that I know it's false. You will never get peace by such means.

I think the only way either side will negotiate will be if it’s on their preferred terms, which won’t happen until one side believes it has exhausted it’s military resources to fight to where negotiations become the lesser of two evils.

It’s critical therefore that Ukraine make tangible gains to reclaim as much territory as possible, and possibly everything except Crimea, at which point Putin would be left with a choice of only losing Donbas or the more comprehensive domestic humiliation of having lost both Donbas and Crimea.

The Ukrainians on the other hand, aren’t likely to negotiate until they believe they have all their territories back, which suggests we’re not going to see a cessation of hostilities anytime soon.

The only victory Ukraine can and should achieve is peace. It can only get this by a de facto ceasire along the frontline which allows negotiations to take place wherein they come to terms on Crimea, for example, and you see mutually assured deescalation along that part of the line. That, more or less, repeated until all problems which prevent a full withdrawal back to pre-February lines is the only way forward which doesn't perpetuate war. It's there now. It might not be in a few months. The only element of war you can control is that part of it where you seek peace. The rest is beyond anyone's control and it always threatens to spill over.

The days of total war and total defeat are gone. And that is a good thing in evolutionary terms for it implies the mobilization of entire nations against entire nations.

The ceasefire, de facto, along the line is that which equals the off-ramp everyone has been speaking about since February. Only it is not merely Putin's (his regime's) offramp, but an offramp for the entire world insofar as war-economy goes. Everyone directly and indirectly involved, which is everyone, needs the offramp. But "withdrawal before ceasefire" is intentional nonsesnse which runs contrary to the idea, floated about constantly by the very same people, of an "off-ramp" which allows the regime to transition, over a period, into something everyone with a brain wants Russia to become. Democratic relative to a renewed economic base. The playbook of Franco with a Northern Ireland consociational twist insofar as cessation to hostilities go.

The Russian security agreement is also the Ukrainian security agreement. It's what allows Ukraine to join the EU and receive an immense amount of Marshall style aid and enjoy the prosperity it deserves. It cannot happen without this mutual agreement and that is true whatever one thinks of Russia.

All Ukranians I have listened to have said the same thing: we want peace. They say, "we hope for victory" because they think that is how peace shall come. But total victory in that sense is not possible and most people know that. Ceasfire, negotiations, withdrawal, step-by-step, security agreement, mutually beneficial, EU entrance, Marshall aid, and so on and on. That's the way to get peace. That is victory for everyone.

 

[massi83]

Ah, a nice word salad after a heavy christmas dinner.

 

[the hea]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[neverdie]

Ah, a nice word salad after a heavy christmas dinner.

ideological entrenchments are hard to overcome. heavy, indeed.

 

[Tibs]

Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.

It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Rajma]

Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.

It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.

Just my thoughts.

And not flirting with Nato would have prevented this exactly how? Because all Putin wanted is to conquer Ukraine, so I’m not sure where Nato fits into your picture?

 

[Sanchez7]

Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.

It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.

Just my thoughts.

Not this shite again…

They are an indepenedent nation and have a right to align with whoever they want. Also, Putin doesn’t give a shit about NATO, Finland and Sweden will be joining soon, thanks to his own war.

 

[dove]

And not flirting with Nato would have prevented this exactly how? Because all Putin wanted is to conquer Ukraine, so I’m not sure where Nato fits into your picture?

Don’t you know that russia were forced to invade Ukraine? The threat from NATO is so huge that they literally withdrew all their forces and tech from the borders with NATO countries. But the poor guys just couldn’t watch Ukraine being taken over by Nazis, satans and whoever else so decided to start this holy special military operation to save the world. That’s what they say anyway, and it sounds real enough for some people to believe.

 

[Rajma]

The morale of the Russian mobilized must be through the roof:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Cloud7]

Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.

It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.

Just my thoughts.

As opposed to....rolling over and being conquered by Russia?

 

[FireballXL5]

Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.

It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.

Just my thoughts.

Christ.

 

[Frosty]

As opposed to....rolling over and being conquered by Russia?

Yes, of course. Russia has shown since WW2 its compassion for states in its sphere of influence. Just ask the Hungarians and Czechs.

 

[harms]

All Ukranians I have listened to have said the same thing: we want peace. They say, "we hope for victory" because they think that is how peace shall come. But total victory in that sense is not possible and most people know that. Ceasfire, negotiations, withdrawal, step-by-step, security agreement, mutually beneficial, EU entrance, Marshall aid, and so on and on. That's the way to get peace. That is victory for everyone.

I literally haven't met a single Ukrainian that would trade "peace" for territorial losses for a few very simple reasons:

• they'll never be truly at peace with Russia as long as Putin is at power — there have been many peace treaties before and there's nothing that stops Putin from ignoring another one
• they've seen what Russians did in the occupied territories — killed and tortured civilians, even kids. They're not leaving their compatriots behind and it's their choice to make

 

[Krakenzero]

I think the only way either side will negotiate will be if it’s on their preferred terms, which won’t happen until one side believes it has exhausted it’s military resources to fight to where negotiations become the lesser of two evils.

It’s critical therefore that Ukraine make tangible gains to reclaim as much territory as possible, and possibly everything except Crimea, at which point Putin would be left with a choice of only losing Donbas or the more comprehensive domestic humiliation of having lost both Donbas and Crimea.

The Ukrainians on the other hand, aren’t likely to negotiate until they believe they have all their territories back, which suggests we’re not going to see a cessation of hostilities anytime soon.

This. Esentially there are 3-4 reasons for wars to end:

A) One side accomplishes all of their military/strategic goals and impose their conditions to the other side (AKA inconditional surrender).

B) One side gets overwhelming superiority so the other sues for peace in order to not lose all military/strategic goals and/or avoid a bloodbath.

C) One or both sides have exhausted their military/economic/political/moral resources to a point in which they can't keep fighting.

D) Political turmoil in one side that leads to a pro-peace regime change.

Russia failed to achieve A in March and has failed to achieve B throughout the year. Since D isn't a realistic option (Ukranians aren't supporting a leader who wants to surrender now), pushing for C is their last option. And that's what it looks like they're doing.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Depending of how the situation evolves in Russia, the D scenario could happen on the opposite end if the entire Putin regime is overthrown by a combination of military mutinies and hordes of angry civilians overtaking the streets (and overhwelming any deployment of police/loyalist forces).

The Russo-Japanese War ended in 1905 because of scenarios B and C, but it set the stage for scenario D to happen in 1917. If Putin knows his Russian history, then he should know what happened when Nicholas II pushed his luck way too far against resolute enemies.

 

[Real Name]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The whole video is hilarious but the bit about media is so ironic its painful.

 

[Real Name]

Ukraine will win one day…the country will be completely destroyed and they’ll owe the West $100s of billions…but at least they ‘won’, Russia weakened AND they’ll have an Oscar.

It will be clear that it was definitely worth flirting with NATO that’s for sure.

Just my thoughts.

Is this one of those 'I'm not pro Russia but' posts.

 

[TwoSheds]

The Catholics said the same about the Protestants in Northern Ireland. They had to let go of that "they are evil and we are without all blame, even if be assymmetrical in order" mentality so that peace could come. It was after negotiations that arms were forever laid down and decomissioning began. Not prior.

The same was true in South Africa. Mandela sought reconciliation though all you could say of Russia could be said of the Apartheid South African regime, too.

It's not just that I disagree with the statement you make, it's that I know it's false. You will never get peace by such means.



The only victory Ukraine can and should achieve is peace. It can only get this by a de facto ceasire along the frontline which allows negotiations to take place wherein they come to terms on Crimea, for example, and you see mutually assured deescalation along that part of the line. That, more or less, repeated until all problems which prevent a full withdrawal back to pre-February lines is the only way forward which doesn't perpetuate war. It's there now. It might not be in a few months. The only element of war you can control is that part of it where you seek peace. The rest is beyond anyone's control and it always threatens to spill over.

The days of total war and total defeat are gone. And that is a good thing in evolutionary terms for it implies the mobilization of entire nations against entire nations.

The ceasefire, de facto, along the line is that which equals the off-ramp everyone has been speaking about since February. Only it is not merely Putin's (his regime's) offramp, but an offramp for the entire world insofar as war-economy goes. Everyone directly and indirectly involved, which is everyone, needs the offramp. But "withdrawal before ceasefire" is intentional nonsesnse which runs contrary to the idea, floated about constantly by the very same people, of an "off-ramp" which allows the regime to transition, over a period, into something everyone with a brain wants Russia to become. Democratic relative to a renewed economic base. The playbook of Franco with a Northern Ireland consociational twist insofar as cessation to hostilities go.

The Russian security agreement is also the Ukrainian security agreement. It's what allows Ukraine to join the EU and receive an immense amount of Marshall style aid and enjoy the prosperity it deserves. It cannot happen without this mutual agreement and that is true whatever one thinks of Russia.

All Ukranians I have listened to have said the same thing: we want peace. They say, "we hope for victory" because they think that is how peace shall come. But total victory in that sense is not possible and most people know that. Ceasfire, negotiations, withdrawal, step-by-step, security agreement, mutually beneficial, EU entrance, Marshall aid, and so on and on. That's the way to get peace. That is victory for everyone.

Northern Ireland is not even a remotely comparable situation to that of Ukraine and Russia. The British essentially installed and propped up a colony in Ireland for 100 years or more populated by zealous folks of a different culture and branch of religion to the locals. If Crimea were invaded tomorrow all those Russians who've been parachuted in since 2014 would scarper sharpish, they wouldn't stick around and fight because it's not their home.

 

[Simbo]

Is it possible Putin was just bored and wanted to play war? He's more money than he can ever spend, well protected, doesn't give a feck about his country or anyone in it and getting on in life. Probably not much new to excite him.

In a war that makes such little sense, among all expert theories, I reckon it needs consideration.

 

[VorZakone]

Is it possible Putin was just bored and wanted to play war? He's more money than he can ever spend, well protected, doesn't give a feck about his country or anyone in it and getting on in life. Probably not much new to excite him.

In a war that makes such little sense, among all expert theories, I reckon it needs consideration.

You're having a laugh, aren't you.

 

[Raoul]

The war summarized in one tweet

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

The war summarized in one tweet

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The sound of that throwdown is music to my ears. Ippon!

Based on what I've seen of Japan in judo during the Tokyo Olympics, you really don't want to face them because their entire judo team is tough in all weight categories.

 

[neverdie]

I literally haven't met a single Ukrainian that would trade "peace" for territorial losses for a few very simple reasons:

• they'll never be truly at peace with Russia as long as Putin is at power — there have been many peace treaties before and there's nothing that stops Putin from ignoring another one
• they've seen what Russians did in the occupied territories — killed and tortured civilians, even kids. They're not leaving their compatriots behind and it's their choice to make

The only peace they can get is a ceasfire which negotiates an agreement wherein they recover those territorial losses. It will be a generational affair after that. All of the above holds for any warzone in history that eventually went the way of ceasefire. I don't see them trading peace for territorial losses, either, but that isn't what I'm arguing. A de facto ceasefire along the line of engagement allows for a step-by-step withdrawal with respect to every single contentious point leading all the way back to the pre-February 24th levels.

Northern Ireland is not even a remotely comparable situation to that of Ukraine and Russia. The British essentially installed and propped up a colony in Ireland for 100 years or more populated by zealous folks of a different culture and branch of religion to the locals. If Crimea were invaded tomorrow all those Russians who've been parachuted in since 2014 would scarper sharpish, they wouldn't stick around and fight because it's not their home.

Structurally, it's precisely the same thing insofar as peace talks go. Two groups of people who absolutely despise each other fighting over land but who will, eventually, have to reach a peace agreement with total victory being impossible for each outside of peace. The major issues being Crimea, the two Separatist states, and a mutual security arrangement which will require an outside mediator or many (not the United States in this example).

 

[Raoul]

The only peace they can get is a ceasfire which negotiates an agreement wherein they recover those territorial losses. It will be a generational affair after that. All of the above holds for any warzone in history that eventually went the way of ceasefire. I don't see them trading peace for territorial losses, either, but that isn't what I'm arguing. A de facto ceasefire along the line of engagement allows for a step-by-step withdrawal with respect to every single contentious point leading all the way back to the pre-February 24th levels.

This will never happen until Russia is fully kicked out of Ukrainian territory because everyone knows Putin's word is worthless and any attempts at piecemeal negotiations will be used by the Russians to regroup and intensify their campaign. Therefore its Russia out, then negotiate. Putin's resources are increasingly limited so he will at some point be incentivized to slither out of the conflict in order to remain alive.

 

[neverdie]

This will never happen until Russia is fully kicked out of Ukrainian territory because everyone knows Putin's word is worthless and any attempts at piecemeal negotiations will be used by the Russians to regroup and intensify their campaign. Therefore its Russia out, then negotiate. Putin's resources are increasingly limited so he will at some point be incentivized to slither out of the conflict in order to remain alive.

I don't think it comes down to Putin's word. There was talk of an off-ramp being given to Putin, as if it were he alone that decided the war. Let's assume it was. Who else do you now extend that off-ramp to? At any rate, the off-ramp is not merely Putin's but Ukraine's, and the entire world's. I can see many reasons for clinging to "withdrawal before ceasefire" (you need informal talks, in most cases, if not all when a war looks like this, to ensure the ceasefire which allows the withdrawal! - which is the ceasefire, of a sort, which allows for talks) but all of them aim at the prolongation of war for different interests. Games.

I don't believe foreign state departments personalize war on this scale, or even much smaller, in the sense other people do. They think of it according to the regime and whatever chessboard that regime is playing with, which won't significantly alter if one person disappears.

What would either side lose, for example, by bringing about a de facto ceasefire via informal channels so that they could spend three days or four negotiating just the Crimean part of the frontline? Doesn't work? Back to where you were. You won't know until you try and if you don't try it will drag on and on ad infinitum and that doesn't change regardless of whose perspective one wishes to take.

A three to seven day ceasefire isn't going to be some enormous break where Russia can regroup. It's not as if each side wouldn't be monitoring the other during that period with conditions placed upon rearmament. If violated, the ceasefire itself, also only de facto, would not last. Nothing to lose from whatever point you look at it.

 

[VorZakone]

I don't think it comes down to Putin's word. There was talk of an off-ramp being given to Putin, as if it were he alone that decided the war. Let's assume it was. Who else do you now extend that off-ramp to? At any rate, the off-ramp is not merely Putin's but Ukraine's, and the entire world's. I can see many reasons for clinging to "withdrawal before ceasefire" but all of them aim at the prolongation of war for different interests. Games.

I don't believe foreign state departments personalize war on this scale, or even much smaller, in the sense other people do. They think of it according to the regime and whatever chessboard that regime is playing with, which won't significantly alter if one person disappears.

What would either side lose, for example, by bringing about a de facto ceasefire via informal channels so that they could spend three days or four negotiating just the Crimean part of the frontline? Doesn't work? Back to where you were. You won't know until you try and if you don't try it will drag on and on ad infinitum and that doesn't change regardless of whose perspective one wishes to take.

A three to seven day ceasefire isn't going to be some enormous break where Russia can regroup. It's not as if each side wouldn't be monitoring the other during that period with conditions placed upon rearmament. If violated, the ceasefire itself, also only de facto, would not last. Nothing to lose from whatever point you look at it.

You seem to think Russia is open to retreating from occupied territory if Ukraine accepts that Crimea remains Russian. Am I interpreting that correctly?

If so, it seems naive to me. I don't think Russia has any intentions of leaving the occupied territories through a diplomatic mechanism. So far it seems that Ukraine will have to do it the hard way: with force.

 

[Raoul]

A three to seven day ceasefire isn't going to be some enormous break where Russia can regroup. It's not as if each side wouldn't be monitoring the other during that period with conditions placed upon rearmament. If violated, the ceasefire itself, also only de facto, would not last. Nothing to lose from whatever point you look at it.

A ceasefire for a few days would be pointless, as the Russians would only use it to regroup in areas where the Ukrainians have them against the ropes. Nor would it work for the Ukrainians because it would pause ongoing progress. Therefore it would be a lot to lose for one side and a lot to gain for the other. This is why its never going to happen until one of the two sides achieves a vast majority of its objectives and the losing side is forced to negotiate because they lack the resources to continue fighting.

 

[neverdie]

You seem to think Russia is open to retreating from occupied territory if Ukraine accepts that Crimea remains Russian. Am I interpreting that correctly?

If so, it seems naive to me. I don't think Russia has any intentions of leaving the occupied territories through a diplomatic mechanism. So far it seems that Ukraine will have to do it the hard way: with force.

Not just that, but in conjunction with a security agreement, settled status of the separatist states, potentially open to a generational referendum guaranteed by various mediators, allowing the way for Ukrainian EU fastracking, aid plans, reconstruction, and, very far down the line, depending on how smart the non-Putin regime is, and how willing the US is to leave certain things behind, potential cooperation in the Middle East and countering of China in the medium term via economic exchange for geopolitical influence. Part of something much larger that I think would be impossible to write here. But if you read between the lines, to key to killing the BRI is this ceasefire and the key to a WRI is the onramp of the same offramp.

Narrowed down, I think Russia retreats from all occupied territory barring Crimea and separatist regions, subject to negotiations which enforce a truly binding security framework for the area and then economic factors.

 

[neverdie]

A ceasefire for a few days would be pointless, as the Russians would only use it to regroup in areas where the Ukrainians have them against the ropes. Nor would it work for the Ukrainians because it pause ongoing progress. Therefore it would be a lot to lose for one side and a lot to gain for the other. This is why its never going to happen until one of the two sides achieves a vast majority of its objectives and the losing side is forced to negotiate because they lack the resources to continue fighting.

Not if it ends the war as opposed to this idea of "any day now" which has been going on since February. If they have them on the ropes, all along the line, which has been maintained at various points for months, what does the end look like? Total defeat? That's not going to happen. Peace is the only victory either side can win here, one which works for all involved no matter how bitter it is to swallow. See all peaces ever made.

And again, surveillance being what it is, if the de facto ceasefire was breached by either side logistically behind the lines, it would be breached materially, along the line, too.

 

[Raoul]

Not if it ends the war as opposed to this idea of "any day now" which has been going on since February. If they have them on the ropes, all along the line, which has been maintained at various points for months, what does the end look like? Total defeat? That's not going to happen. Peace is the only victory either side can win here, one which works for all involved no matter how bitter it is to swallow. See all peaces ever made.

And again, surveillance being what it is, if the de facto ceasefire was breached by either side logistically behind the lines, it would be breached materially, along the line, too.

Yes, but it won't end the war, just as the Minsk agreement didn't end the war. It was simply a lull until Putin found the right time to gain more territory. Putin wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia for neo-imperialist conquest and to fortify his domestic credibility after having plundered Russia for the past 22 years. That means he won't stop. Therefore it would be naively shortsighted to presume a brief stop in fighting would do anything other than delay the inevitable resumption of hostilities, because Putin won't stop unless he runs out of resources to fight.

 

[Raoul]

Not just that, but in conjunction with a security agreement, settled status of the separatist states, potentially open to a generational referendum guaranteed by various mediators, allowing the way for Ukrainian EU fastracking, aid plans, reconstruction, and, very far down the line, depending on how smart the non-Putin regime is, and how willing the US is to leave certain things behind, potential cooperation in the Middle East and countering of China in the medium term via economic exchange for geopolitical influence. Part of something much larger that I think would be impossible to write here. But if you read between the lines, to key to killing the BRI is this ceasefire and the key to a WRI is the onramp of the same offramp.

Narrowed down, I think Russia retreats from all occupied territory barring Crimea and separatist regions, subject to negotiations which enforce a truly binding security framework for the area and then economic factors.

There's no such thing as a "binding security framework" when it comes to Putin. He's no different than than Hitler with Molotov-Ribbentrop. Everything from the Budapest Memorandum to the Minsk agreement has been broken. Therefore there is no realistic outcome for the Ukrainians other than to achieve what they want - which is Russia off their territory.

 

[neverdie]

herefore it would be naively shortsighted to presume a brief stop in fighting would do anything other than delay the inevitable resumption of hostilities, because Putin won't stop unless he runs out of resources to fight.

And if that turns out to be true, the entire world can say "told you so" and nothing will have been lost except Ukraine will have gained even more support from the countries which do not support it now. A few days of ceasefire, de facto, with mediated talks. Nothing lost. Doesn't work? As you were.

 

[neverdie]

There's no such thing as a "binding security framework" when it comes to Putin. He's no different than than Hitler with Molotov-Ribbentrop. Everything from the Budapest Memorandum to the Minsk agreement has been broken. Therefore there is no realistic outcome for the Ukrainians other than to achieve what they want - which is Russia off their territory.

That won't happen by the means being used and everyone involved knows it. It's criminal really (war, that is, and I mean all instances of it). War doesn't care if your Russian or Ukrainian or whatever, it's going to be rape, murder, torture, and so on, with all the tombstones just the same. If losing face is what people are worried about, they might consider that war, being the normalization of all those things I've just listed, needs to end. And that there is zero risk regarding a de facto mediated ceasefire insofar as mutual surveillance of each side to each, vetted by mediators, goes. No one is refortifying their lines within a couple of days. And attempts to do so would just violate the de facto state. It's a zero sum choice. Lose nothing by trying, lose a lot by not bothering. You don't make peace with your friends, I think Tutu said that (he would have known what he was talking about, too) and it's been true of every war ever fought (even when total defeat did happen and nations had to come to terms with the fact that they couldn't imprison an entire nation).

My problem is with war-economy as a structural evil within which all nations partake. It's a disgrace that it's allowed to go on as it is, legitimized. This is just the most prominent of several examples around the world right now. You lock people up for murder, and give them more time when premeditated, for it implies motive, but make it an honorable thing via propaganda (all nations) when it implies war. Not the thread, but also is the thread. For the Russians have been at it from the start, the Ukrainians, too, - everyone, as you'd expect, because the structure of war propaganda hasn't changed in three thousand years even though the form has (mediated means of consumption).

 

[Raoul]

And if that turns out to be true, the entire world can say "told you so" and nothing will have been lost except Ukraine will have gained even more support from the countries which do not support it now. A few days of ceasefire, de facto, with mediated talks. Nothing lost. Doesn't work? As you were.

As mentioned before, if Putin is correctly viewed as a liar seeking use a cease fire to regroup, then it would not only be pointless, but would actually hut the Ukrainian side. There are currently no realistic terms by which negotiations can be conducted. Everyone knows Putin's goal, just as they do Ukraine's goal. The non-Russian side also knows Putin's history of using negotiations to create a facade of diplomacy to make himself appear reasonable and conciliatory to domestic and foreign audiences, which is merely a way to manipulate naive onlookers into believing the other side are being unreasonable. The Ukrainians are correctly not falling for it.

 

[Raoul]

That won't happen by the means being used and everyone involved knows it. It's criminal really (war, that is, and I mean all instances of it). War doesn't care if your Russian or Ukrainian or whatever, it's going to be rape, murder, torture, and so on, with all the tombstones just the same. If losing face is what people are worried about, they might consider that war, being the normalization of all those things I've just listed, needs to end. And that there is zero risk regarding a de facto mediated ceasefire insofar as mutual surveillance of each side to each, vetted by mediators, goes. No one is refortifying their lines within a couple of days. And attempts to do so would just violate the de facto state. It's a zero sum choice. Lose nothing by trying, lose a lot by not bothering. You don't make peace with your friends, I think Tutu said that (he would have known what he was talking about, too) and it's been true of every war ever fought (even when total defeat did happen and nations had to come to terms with the fact that they couldn't imprison an entire nation).

They can try once one of the two sides exhausts all of their military options. Until then, both sides are incentivized to continue fighting because neither are remotely interested in capitulating to the other's demands. They are light years apart and the Ukrainians are correctly not falling for the native trap of the illusion of negotiations.

 

[neverdie]

They can try once one of the two sides exhausts all of their military options. Until then, both sides are incentivized to continue fighting because neither are remotely interested in capitulating to the other's demands. They are light years apart and the Ukrainians are correctly not falling for the native trap of the illusion of negotiations.

I don't think it's a trap. If mediators confirm that Russia is the one who breaks a tentative de facto ceasfire, then what does the world look like from a Russian perspective? They've just lost a lot of political capital. No one is winning here. All sides losing and it doesn't matter, in the end, who blames who, because this has been done for so long, so many times, that it all just becomes a footnote in history which says "it was a bad idea, I wonder why we keep doing it".

If you're right, though, and it goes the way of exhausting military options then I would assume a worst-case scenario. War goes on far longer and the same outcome when all is said and done.

 

[Raoul]

I don't think it's a trap. If mediators confirm that Russia is the one who breaks a tentative de facto ceasfire, then what does the world look like from a Russian perspective? They've just lost a lot of political capital. No one is winning here. All sides losing and it doesn't matter, in the end, who blames who, because this has been done for so long, so many times, that it all just becomes a footnote in history which says "it was a bad idea, I wonder why we keep doing it".

If you're right, though, and it goes the way of exhausting military options then I would assume a worst-case scenario. War goes on far longer and the same outcome when all is said and done.

Mediators also observed that Putin brushed off the so called Minsk Agreement, using it as a device to appear diplomatic while continuing to foment violence behind the scenes and now in 2022, brazenly in public. This is why it will never happen. NATO, Europe, and Ukraine know Putin is against the ropes and are not going to remove their boot off his throat until he is finished