Political impacts of Ukraine war

[Brad Sallows]

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

I'm writing about the situation as it stands. Ukraine loses something. Catastrophic collapse is more likely for Ukraine than Russia, in which case Ukraine loses a lot more.

Certainly not what Russia has proposed.

I didn't ask about terms. I'm wondering whether any of the "let the killing continue" cadre sees a path to achieving what they'd like to see. What - in the realm of practicality, not paper napkin dreams - happens that enables Ukraine to reclaim its lost territory? If there is no practical way forward except either continuing loss of trivial amounts of territory or collapse followed by loss of large amounts of territory, what's the advantage of not trying to tie off the latter risk?

 

[McG]

"Ukraine"

Odd to put quotation marks around this word. Like suggesting Ukraine is not real.

 

[Remius]

I'm writing about the situation as it stands. Ukraine loses something. Catastrophic collapse is more likely for Ukraine than Russia, in which case Ukraine loses a lot more.

So just give Russia what it wants? Ukraine will lose it all if that happens.

I didn't ask about terms. I'm wondering whether any of the "let the killing continue" cadre sees a path to achieving what they'd like to see.

It’s isn’t appeasement or surrender. The stop the killing crowd can stop their hypocrisy and apologetics. Russia could stop right now but it won’t. They are the only reason the killing continues.

What - in the realm of practicality, not paper napkin dreams - happens that enables Ukraine to reclaim its lost territory? If there is no practical way forward except either continuing loss of trivial amounts of territory or collapse followed by loss of large amounts of territory, what's the advantage of not trying to tie off the latter risk?

Because it won’t stop. The next bound, then the next bound. And I expect the same claims made when it was said Russians invading was just panic and chicken little paranoia when it happens again.

 

[RangerRay]

"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.

I’m not sure why you are being so obtuse about how there are Ukrainians with various opinions of the war. I mean, that’s a given. Just like there were Brits who wanted to make kissy-face with Hitler during the war. Their government, which they elected, will make that decision. If the people are displeased with the decisions of their government, they have not been shy about letting their government know. Your arguments are meaningless.

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

I’ll put it on his head if I damn well please. He’s willing to make a deal with a dictator over the boundaries of another country that isn’t a party to these so-called negotiations. He has the power to give the Ukrainians what they need to at least force better terms on Moscow. Obviously, the other western countries are currently not in a position to become the arsenal of democracy. If he’s successful, China will have free-rein to invade Taiwan and Putin will continue to expand the Russian Empire 2.0. But as we saw when he came out of the room at Helsinki with Putin, he looked like a whipped cure and threw his own intel agencies under the bus in favour of a hostile country.

 

[FJAG]

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.

You are giving Trump too large a role in this. Ukraine goes back to 2004-5 with the Orange Revolution. At that point the country started a tug-of-war between the pro-Putin/pro-Russian. Trump wasn't in the picture although he had dabbled as a Reform Party candidate for president in 2000. By the time Trump came back into the picture, numerous events pitting Russia against nationalist reform movements had already happened including Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine stood as a western proxy for years before Trump.

The European and Canadian support is not begrudging at all. Neither was the US support before 2025. Not everythng is about Trump until Trump makes it all about himself.

Trump's in it for self-actualization.

Nah. He's a nepo baby.

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.

You're trying to load the level of support with your use of the words "some" and "many." While I don't doubt there are some who want to see "peace at any Ukrainian price," many of us try to see the second and third order effects of Trump's gutless moves. The bite and hold tactics being used by Russia and China are a threat to world peace in the long term. Trump doesn't look beyond his own presidential term - no that's wrong - he's looking to extend MAGA's domination of US politics in the long term. He's just not looking at the world in the long term.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Odd to put quotation marks around this word. Like suggesting Ukraine is not real.

The quotation marks are appropriate when people refer to something called "Ukraine" as if it is monolithically uniform.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So just give Russia what it wants? Ukraine will lose it all if that happens.

It’s isn’t appeasement or surrender. The stop the killing crowd can stop their hypocrisy and apologetics. Russia could stop right now but it won’t. They are the only reason the killing continues.

Because it won’t stop. The next bound, then the next bound. And I expect the same claims made when it was said Russians invading was just panic and chicken little paranoia when it happens again.

Which is why I've advocated an extremely rapid accession to NATO. If you want to take up an argument with someone who wants to shrug while Russia takes more bites, it isn't me.

 

[Brad Sallows]

He has the power to give the Ukrainians what they need to at least force better terms on Moscow. Obviously, the other western countries are currently not in a position to become the arsenal of democracy.

Ukraine is most likely no worse off than if Obama or Biden were president. Strident critics should have found their voices years ago. Obviously, other western countries have to pull up their socks. Canadians expecting Americans to foot the bill for whatever they think should be done is a jaw-dropping level of entitlement.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The bite and hold tactics being used by Russia and China are a threat to world peace in the long term. Trump doesn't look beyond his own presidential term - no that's wrong - he's looking to extend MAGA's domination of US politics in the long term. He's just not looking at the world in the long term.

Pointless whinging if Canada and Europe don't contribute proportionate to their economic capacities. Time spent griping here is time not spent writing to MPs and PMMC.

 

[lenaitch]

Yes. "You're victim blaming/shaming" doesn't work on me. This is geopolitics and conflict between national interests, not individual mobility rights. Not a large part of responsibility, 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.

I guess I'm not following. How could Ukraine "might have reasonably prevented" Russia from seizing Crimea? How could it have "reasonably prevented" Russia from invading in 2022? Lie on its back with its legs in the air and 'think of England'?

If it is "victim blaming/shaming" that Russia is 100% the aggressor here, then do you feel Russia is somehow a victim in all of this?

 

[McG]

The quotation marks are appropriate when people refer to something called "Ukraine" as if it is monolithically uniform.

It is a nation state, an independent global actor, and a democracy. You use quotation to delegitimize Ukraine’s sovereignty and existence, because that lessens the criminality of what Russia is doing. But Ukraine really is a thing with a right to exist.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It is a nation state, an independent global actor, and a democracy. You use quotation to delegitimize Ukraine’s sovereignty and existence, because that lessens the criminality of what Russia is doing. But Ukraine really is a thing with a right to exist.

If my usage and prior explanations haven't been clear enough: I use quotation marks in this case to delegitimize rhetoric that suggests a monolithic Ukrainian purpose or a right of a majority (let alone a ruling elite) to impose anything they want on everyone else. People write or say "Ukraine will decide" as if there is one Ukrainian voice. There isn't, and that usage lessens and masks the illiberalism of ignoring the interests of dissenters. For people who don't want the war and don't want to fight in it who are browbeaten into silence, external anti-war voices and actors are the next best thing.

I suspect there is no right to exist; only a right to try to exist.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I guess I'm not following. How could Ukraine "might have reasonably prevented" Russia from seizing Crimea? How could it have "reasonably prevented" Russia from invading in 2022? Lie on its back with its legs in the air and 'think of England'?

If it is "victim blaming/shaming" that Russia is 100% the aggressor here, then do you feel Russia is somehow a victim in all of this?

Unsure. Granted or leased basing rights for naval installations in terms satisfactory to Russia? Tighter control of hardline Ukrainian nationalists? Kept its nuclear weapons? Sure, maybe nothing would have been good enough and there would always be another pretext. We can't know because they didn't try some of the obvious moves. Ultimately a weaker nation sometimes has to make concessions to a stronger belligerent one. Justice doesn't enter into it. Blame for deterioration in relations is usually not an all-or-nothing binary.

If Putin is determined to reoccupy more of eastern Europe, we'll find out soon enough. Is it worth trying to settle a peace and immediately admit Ukraine into NATO and see where things go from there? How would that be materially different than the fear some have that Putin will make a move on a NATO member anyways?

 

[Kirkhill]

Communitarianism - fascism is indistinguishable from socialism

Individualism - libertarianism is indistinguishable from anarchy

If we reduce every institution to its individuals then all institutions can be deemed illegitimate.

Churches. Public Schools. Tribes. Parliaments...

 

[Kirkhill]

Subsidiarity, deciding everything at the lowest level, can be used to undermine any institution.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I guess I'm not following. How could Ukraine "might have reasonably prevented" Russia from seizing Crimea? How could it have "reasonably prevented" Russia from invading in 2022? Lie on its back with its legs in the air and 'think of England'?

If it is "victim blaming/shaming" that Russia is 100% the aggressor here, then do you feel Russia is somehow a victim in all of this?

The answer to this is political and uncomfortable. The Ukrainian Govt was pro-Russian until it wasn't (see colour revolution). The political pivot away from the Russian sphere of influence was untenable to Moscow, hence the various stages of escalation of this conflict, going back to pre-2014, arguably 1991 when the USSR collapsed.

IMO, this is a civil war, colonial conflict and war of aggression all rolled up in to one big mess. One side believed they had the right to self-determination and the other side disagreed with that.

It's a civil war because Ukraine is not a united polity and there are groups of people in the Country who support Russia.



It's a colonial conflict because Ukraine is a colonial interest that Russia considers in their sphere of influence:



It's a war of aggression because Russia felt threatened enough that it had to act. The tanks rolled out of necessity in Moscow's eyes.

"How might Ukraine have reasonably prevented this?" is kind of a pointless question because if it were possible, it would have happened. Both sides hold views and positions that were/are untenable to the other. Might is right and the conflict will reach its conclusion, one way or another.

The real question is "how does this conflict conclude and what is the outcome of that conclusion?"