Political impacts of Ukraine war

[HavokFour]

Is there any historical precedent for Russia and another major power divvying up an Eastern European country without that country having any input?

Never been such a thing.

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Not once.

First Partition of Poland - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Molotov–Ribbentrop is an fitting analogy. Another fitting analogy is Sykes-Picot. Neither is a perfect fit. Both reflect arrogant imperialist nations deciding they can redraw other people’s borders without including those other people in the discussion. But, specifically common with Molotov–Ribbentrop is the current discussions normalizing that powerful nations who start wars of conquest should be entitled to keep (and ethnically cleanse) what they have seized. Trump has also mused about American expansions through conquests of military and other coercive means (economic force). It is very much in Canada’s interests that the road to any internationally recognized peace agreement include Ukraine in defining that solution … and, if any belligerent is excluded from the discussion, the excluded party should ne the one that started the conquest invasion.

I don’t think a Putin/Trump solution that excludes Ukraine from discussion can be defended via the Neville Chamberlain argument of give the bad man what he wants and he will stop doing the bad things. Appeasement did not avoid Hitler & Stalin carving Poland, and it will not stop Putin from invading & ethnically cleansing neighbours.

Confirming further, and has done a complete 180 again and now believes Zelenskyy is the problem because he dares follow his own constitution. Never mind that what Russia want's to swap with Ukraine is heavily fortified areas and would ensure they cannot be stopped when this all starts up again mid-2030, because it absolutely will.

Trump says he and Putin will discuss ‘land swapping’ at Ukraine war summit

US president gives details on Alaska meeting and expresses frustration with Zelenskyy’s conditions for any peace deal

www.theguardian.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

Again, waving the Nazi flag. How hard is it to not mention all of the other conflicts partly rooted in the treatment of ethnic minorities across borders and the desire of ethnic majority countries to intervene? FRY? Much of Africa and other parts of the world with borders drawn by colonial empires and other conquests?

Well, I could easily use the Serb-Croat war at the beginning of the Yugo Civil War, would that make you happier?

Milosevic and his merry gang talked ad nauseum about 'protecting' all the Serbs living outside of Serbia proper and the creating of a 'Greater Serbia'.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Confirming further, and has done a complete 180 again and now believes Zelenskyy is the problem because he dares follow his own constitution. Never mind that what Russia want's to swap with Ukraine is heavily fortified areas and would ensure they cannot be stopped when this all starts up again mid-2030, because it absolutely will.

Trump says he and Putin will discuss ‘land swapping’ at Ukraine war summit

US president gives details on Alaska meeting and expresses frustration with Zelenskyy’s conditions for any peace deal

www.theguardian.com

Shortly Poland will be in a position to ensure that Ukraine does not go completely under. I would NOT rule out Poland obtaining its own nukes to counter any threat that may come from Russia. The longer the war continues, the more time Poland has and the stronger it becomes.

 

[RangerRay]

Again, waving the Nazi flag.

If the shoe fits…

 

[Brad Sallows]

convenient…

By attempting to define “limits” though you set the bar for people like Putin to cross them. So no. Never set limits and never set costs.

Why would you assume a limit has to be revealed any more than any other strategic decision-making threshold?

It isn't necessary to advertise exit conditions in order to have them. Reassessing costs to determine whether to bail is permitted after an enterprise has started.

Regardless, I'm curious how far people here are willing to go without worrying whether any of us is setting national and alliance policy. Obviously there's a certain amount of detachment when you're not a Ukrainian conscript.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, I could easily use the Serb-Croat war at the beginning of the Yugo Civil War, would that make you happier?

Milosevic and his merry gang talked ad nauseum about 'protecting' all the Serbs living outside of Serbia proper and the creating of a 'Greater Serbia'.

I'm sure anyone could pick all the egregious examples first and let them narrow his thinking, if he chose.

 

[KevinB]

It's not true that a country can do anything it wants. Russia might like to re-occupy other countries, too, but it hasn't tried very hard.

Rather overt measures have been taken in a number of countries.
Georgia (and actual invasion)
Moldova: consistent election meddling
Hungary: Propping up Orban
Serbia: Propping up Vučić
Slovakia: supporting Anti Western Politicians
Plus a rash of other anti NATO actions from outright murders to bombings and sabotage of various military and civilian enterprises.

NATO has much to do with that.

As the US flame goes out Putin is emboldened. Heck he’s down right thanked POTUS for a number of his actions.

If Ukraine had been less corrupt it might have been admitted to NATO; if someone had reacted strongly enough in 2014 or 2018 Russia might have been dissuaded from further seizures (if, if).

Agreed. But I’d say it goes back further, to Georgia in 2008 under Bush.
While Georgia was in Iraq helping with OIF, the US watched while Russia invaded.

If we stretch the parameters enough, we're at war with Russia - and China, and several other countries or strong-ish factions. Looking back, I'm confident historians are going to see escalation in 2022 or right now as options approximately as prudent as going to war with Germany in 1938, or launching offensives into Germany in 1939. (Yes, I'm aware some people argue that Germany was weaker at both junctures, too.)

There is zero excuse for the West not being ready now, we’ve had decades to see what Putin is.

"Ukraine" decides whether it is willing to keep trading lives - some undoubtedly of people unwilling but compelled - for slow loss of territory,

Which is for Ukrainians to decide.

but the conclusion that the war is worth continuing depends on the assumption Russia won't reach some kind of domination point at which Ukraine starts to rapidly collapse. If that happens, halting or suspending the war when it still looked like a stalemate will look like a golden missed opportunity. Ukraine needs to buy time. Take the M out of DIME and allow other pressures to work, if we think they might.

Of course if Russia collapses all the appeasers will look fairly treasonous, and might find themselves hanging from lampposts.

 

[Remius]

Why would you assume a limit has to be revealed any more than any other strategic decision-making threshold?

It isn't necessary to advertise exit conditions in order to have them. Reassessing costs to determine whether to bail is permitted after an enterprise has started.

Regardless, I'm curious how far people here are willing to go without worrying whether any of us is setting national and alliance policy. Obviously there's a certain amount of detachment when you're not a Ukrainian conscript.

Appeasing Putin has nothing to do with saving or caring about Ukrainian conscripts. The concern isn’t genuine if the reaction is to just let him do what he wants.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Rather overt measures have been taken in a number of countries.
Georgia (and actual invasion)
Moldova: consistent election meddling
Hungary: Propping up Orban
Serbia: Propping up Vučić
Slovakia: supporting Anti Western Politicians
Plus a rash of other anti NATO actions from outright murders to bombings and sabotage of various military and civilian enterprises.

I can't get worked up to feel righteously displeased over things most of the powerful countries do.

I subscribe to the US conservative vision of government: people have governments to secure their individual rights, not governments give rights to people. The idea that "Ukraine" (meaning some kind of bare majority of people, and maybe not even that) can decide to expend lives cheaply isn't acceptable. They've lost the territory occupied; they're highly unlikely to win any of it back. They need to end the bleeding and start rebuilding.

If western countries truly want to pull the plug on Russian encroachment, they ought to admit Ukraine to NATO right after peace is settled. If anyone presents a serious face about trying to take Russia down a notch and then starts hand-wringing about NATO membership for Ukraine and what that might lead to, he isn't truly serious - he's just making tough-sounding empty noises. A lot of that going around.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Appeasing Putin has nothing to do with saving or caring about Ukrainian conscripts.

Peace settlement =/= appeasement.

The concern isn’t genuine if the reaction is to just let him do what he wants.

Again, strawman.

 

[FJAG]

I recall Trump specifically asking countries to get off Russian O&G in his first term.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

He's missing the plot in his second term.

but Ukraine has always known that Russia wants a secure naval establishment in the Crimea and is sensitive to the treatment of ethnic Russians in former Soviet Union republics. The difference between "to blame" and "might reasonably have prevented" is in consideration.

And he wants more of the Baltic and to reconnect with all the ethnic Russians that were moved into there after WW2 - Does he get that too? Everyone knows its next on the list once Russia recovers.

 

[Remius]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

He's missing the plot in his second term.


And he wants more of the Baltic and to reconnect with all the ethnic Russians that were moved into there after WW2 - Does he get that too? Everyone knows its next on the list once Russia recovers.

Meh, maybe they will make bad policy choices and people will be worried about Baltic conscripts right?

FML…

 

[Brad Sallows]

And he wants more of the Baltic and to reconnect with all the ethnic Russians that were moved into there after WW2 - Does he get that too? Everyone knows its next on the list once Russia recovers.

Only if NATO folds, in which case none of the other posturing advanced here and elsewhere as proposed solutions to Putin's aggression matters. If NATO won't stand up, it's unlikely anyone else would.

Ukraine is in a shitty position right now because it wasn't in NATO. Member-of-NATO versus not-member-of-NATO is a highly relevant factor. People ought to stop reading it out of their estimates.

 

[Remius]

Peace settlement =/= appeasement.

Again, strawman.

Nope. It’s giving him what he wants. Making excuses for it doesn’t change that.

It’s a straw man to your straw man.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Nope. It’s giving him what he wants. Making excuses for it doesn’t change that.

It’s a straw man to your straw man.

Most peace settlements are compromises, which means all parties get some of what they want but not all of it. Some peace settlements are dictated by victors from a position of strength. Is either of those appeasement?

What exactly is it that you see as a realistic unfolding of events that leads to Ukraine re-possessing the territory lost since 2022?

 

[RangerRay]

The idea that "Ukraine" (meaning some kind of bare majority of people, and maybe not even that) can decide to expend lives cheaply isn't acceptable.

That is up to the Ukrainians to decide. Not us. And as long as they are willing to fight, we should back them to the hilt rather than engage in Tankie apologetics.

They've lost the territory occupied; they're highly unlikely to win any of it back. They need to end the bleeding and start rebuilding.

Maybe if we actually gave the support they need instead of the dribs and drabs that we have since February 2022 (enough not to lose, not enough to win), this war would be in a different state than it is now. But I guess we’ll never know now since the Regional Manager is meeting the CEO in Russia…I mean Alaska, to give him his annual report.

 

[FJAG]

Only if NATO folds

But that's the point. Like it or not, Ukraine is a NATO proxy. What NATO does to aid Ukraine signals in the strongest terms what it will do to protect its own member states. And we're one of those border states. We need to ante up.

Most peace settlements are compromises

Between the parties; not between one party and a failed real estate developer with delusions of a Nobel prize and a bunch of surrender-monkey advisors looking to retrench within their national borders with a revived America First policy. In principle I'm not opposed America First, as long as its a deliberate, measured slow movement rather than someone's Tuesday night wet dream.

 

[Remius]

Most peace settlements are compromises, which means all parties get some of what they want but not all of it. Some peace settlements are dictated by victors from a position of strength. Is either of those appeasement?

So has it been determined who is the victor? You speak as if this is a done deal.

What exactly is it that you see as a realistic unfolding of events that leads to Ukraine re-possessing the territory lost since 2022?

Certainly not what Russia has proposed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That is up to the Ukrainians to decide. Not us. And as long as they are willing to fight, we should back them to the hilt rather than engage in Tankie apologetics.

"Ukrainians" includes people for the war and people against the war. I have at least twice pointed out that, in effect, the lazy formulation "Ukrainians decide" is a summation that dismisses the rights of people who don't want the war. It is possible to want all the good things that will happen if the war ends without wanting Putin to get some of what he wants - that's an undesirable but necessary side-effect.

Maybe if we actually gave the support they need instead of the dribs and drabs that we have since February 2022 (enough not to lose, not enough to win), this war would be in a different state than it is now. But I guess we’ll never know now since the Regional Manager is meeting the CEO in Russia…I mean Alaska, to give him his annual report.

"We" covers a lot of countries and governments. Stop putting this on Trump's head.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But that's the point. Like it or not, Ukraine is a NATO proxy. What NATO does to aid Ukraine signals in the strongest terms what it will do to protect its own member states. And we're one of those border states. We need to ante up.

That's a line being pushed by various people for their own reasons. Ukraine is not a NATO proxy. Ukraine is begrudgingly supported, mostly because reflexive anti-Trumpers in the US saw that Trump was unsupportive (so they jumped on the opposite position, not with much enthusiasm) and reflexive neo-cons saw another war to meddle in. Before Ukraine provided yet another angle to attack Trump, it was just a fairly corrupt eastern European country in which most western countries wanted very little involvement.

Between the parties; not between one party and a failed real estate developer with delusions of a Nobel prize and a bunch of surrender-monkey advisors looking to retrench within their national borders with a revived America First policy. In principle I'm not opposed America First, as long as its a deliberate, measured slow movement rather than someone's Tuesday night wet dream.

Trump's in it for self-actualization. If he succeeds, he gets no moral points for intentions but he does for ends and probably for means. Some will quibble about the war not being brought to an end with a pure just settlement; many will be happy if not relieved to see it end, period.