Political impacts of Ukraine war

[McG]

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.

 

[brihard]

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.

Precisely this.

 

[GK .Dundas]

One of my fears and it may just be paranoia .
But what if Putin mentions casually .... that however Trump wished to resolve whatever border issues that Trump had with Canada .
Would most certainly not be any of Russia's business.
Sykes-Picot indeed.

 

[RangerRay]

Reports of Trump’s pivot on Ukraine have been greatly exaggerated. And the media attempts to play clean-up for him.

Weekend Update #145: From Trump Will Sanction Russia--to--How Much Of Ukraine Does Trump Want To Give To Russia

How Trump Corrupts The Media Over Ukraine--A Case Study: A Year Ago This Was The Week The Analysts Decided Pokrovsk Was About To Fall

open.substack.com

This should have been the week when all final illusions died. It started with confident predictions, even boasts that Trump was going to drop the hammer on Russia and has ended with a discussion over what parts of Ukraine Trump wants to be given to Russia. It has left European leaders scrambling (when they should have expected this all along) and those pro-Ukraine Republicans nothing to do but delve ever deeper into their fantasy lands.

At least this was a week where I saw first hand how the White House corrupts the media over Ukraine (and other things) so thought I would outline one example of this. And, it was a year ago this last well that the stories were being spread that Pokrovsk was doomed, and that it was a strategic hub the capture of which by Russia would be a blow to Ukraine. A year ago!

 

[brihard]

Reports of Trump’s pivot on Ukraine have been greatly exaggerated. And the media attempts to play clean-up for him.

Weekend Update #145: From Trump Will Sanction Russia--to--How Much Of Ukraine Does Trump Want To Give To Russia

How Trump Corrupts The Media Over Ukraine--A Case Study: A Year Ago This Was The Week The Analysts Decided Pokrovsk Was About To Fall

open.substack.com

Nobody should ever have expected or believed Trump was going to go really hardline on Russia or take and hold an unequivocal position on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. There’s not a shred of past tangible action or policy by Trump’s administration that would make that a convincing position, and he has a history of selling out or abandoning historical allies or parties within whom the U.S. is aligned.

Putin will probably still be in charge of Russia long after Trump is no longer in office, and that forms part of Putin’s strategy. He just needs to string Trump along long enough for other more pressing domestic concerns to take over his attention. Trump, meanwhile, will be happy to sell off bits of Ukraine if it lets him go on TV and talk about “deals”.

 

[Kirkhill]

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

Yalta.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

Funny enough though, apparently those Sykes-Picot borders are now sacrament when it suits the locals. Such as the "Syria owning the Golan" despite Israel holding it longer than Syria ever did.

 

[Eaglelord17]

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.

Chamberlain never had that argument. Chamberlains argument was Britain wasn’t ready to fight Germany yet so they needed time to get ready. Very different than simply hoping for ‘peace for our time’.

Unlike 1938 all the equipment needed to take on Russia is already in existence, we just have to send it to Ukraine.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That’s a false premise, I don’t concede that Russia won’t break enough.

What's false? There are two competing factors: the threshold at which Russia breaks, and the threshold at which the human cost exceeds the gain of Russia breaking. Is any amount of human cost to be tolerated, or is there a limit?

On the original subject: Ukrainian lives and lands are not Trump’s to bargain away.

If you mean morally, correct. Trump has no right. As a matter of practical politics and humanitarian relief, he's not morally on a different plane than any other prominent world politicians who have allowed some things to unwind themselves and have chosen to intervene in others, with or without the consent or pleading of those directly affected. Trump is of course most likely in it only for his own self-satisfaction and image.

If we were serious about analogizing, we'd have a thread where we note ALL of the illiberal actions undertaken by various governments, particularly in western countries we essentially regard as first-tier liberal democracies, and gauge which are truly suffering from sustained creeping illiberalism by repeating or edging towards mistakes of the past.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

They shouldn't (ought). But the cost has to be measured (is).

 

[RangerRay]

Nobody should ever have expected or believed Trump was going to go really hardline on Russia or take and hold an unequivocal position on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. There’s not a shred of past tangible action or policy by Trump’s administration that would make that a convincing position, and he has a history of selling out or abandoning historical allies or parties within whom the U.S. is aligned.

Putin will probably still be in charge of Russia long after Trump is no longer in office, and that forms part of Putin’s strategy. He just needs to string Trump along long enough for other more pressing domestic concerns to take over his attention. Trump, meanwhile, will be happy to sell off bits of Ukraine if it lets him go on TV and talk about “deals”.

Fully agree. I was always in the “action speaks louder than words” camp. The actions never met the “I’m FINALLY mad at Putin” words.

 

[RangerRay]

And yet, Trump's about to sell Ukraine down the river to save Putin's bacon and call himself a peacemaker. This is what you get when you have a leader with no idea of what a long-term strategy is.

What do you mean? His long term strategy is to get the Nobel Peace Prize (can’t see that happening) and build a hotel next door to the Kremlin.

 

[quadrapiper]

What's false? There are two competing factors: the threshold at which Russia breaks, and the threshold at which the human cost exceeds the gain of Russia breaking. Is any amount of human cost to be tolerated, or is there a limit?

I noticed you're quite vague with your "human cost" statements. Dead Ukrainians of any kind? One is too many. Possible future deaths among allied forces? Ditto.

Dead Russian service members, or those civilians who are legitimate targets? Their lives, and the continued existence of their country, should not be a point of concern. Die, surrender individually, rebel against Moscow, mutiny, withdraw collectively, desert, whatever, just stop being a threat in Ukraine.

 

[PrairieFella]

I noticed you're quite vague with your "human cost" statements. Dead Ukrainians of any kind? One is too many. Possible future deaths among allied forces? Ditto.

Dead Russian service members, or those civilians who are legitimate targets? Their lives, and the continued existence of their country, should not be a point of concern. Die, surrender individually, rebel against Moscow, mutiny, withdraw collectively, desert, whatever, just stop being a threat in Ukraine.

Exactly. This war would end tomorrow if the Russians leave the areas recognized to be Ukrainian territory. There is one aggressor, one country at fault and its seat ain't Kyiv.

 

[FJAG]

What do you mean? His long term strategy is to get the Nobel Peace Prize (can’t see that happening) and build a hotel next door to the Kremlin.

I was starting to think that inviting Putin to Alaska was to allow Putin to kick the tires on the state so that Putin could decide if he'd accept a return of Alaska to Russia in exchange for a Trump golf course and that hotel in Moscow.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I noticed you're quite vague with your "human cost" statements. Dead Ukrainians of any kind? One is too many. Possible future deaths among allied forces? Ditto.

Dead Russian service members, or those civilians who are legitimate targets? Their lives, and the continued existence of their country, should not be a point of concern. Die, surrender individually, rebel against Moscow, mutiny, withdraw collectively, desert, whatever, just stop being a threat in Ukraine.

And yet we have laws of conflict and other humanitarian laws. Obviously enemy lives and welfare matters.

 

[YZT580]

And yet we have laws of conflict and other humanitarian laws. Obviously enemy lives and welfare matters.

What prey tell, are these humanitarian laws you keep talking about? Laws are written to define the bounds of behaviour. Science laws are a good example. For example: an object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by an external force. We all know it. These humanitarian laws supposedly outline what is considered to be acceptable behaviour during wartime conditions and all of Canada and much of Europe is up in arms over Gaza because of the alleged violations of acceptable norms by Israel to the extent that we are going to legalize a terrorist state. (That makes as much sense as recognizing Tortuga as a legitimate state when it served as a pirate base.) Anyway, the point is that agree or not, west is taking action to censure a violation of humanitarian rules. The same cannot be said re: Russia. Sure we have cut off some trade and censored some people but we haven't taken the actions needed to enforce those humanitarian laws. Russia has its own set of laws and we, by doing nothing, have accepted their definitions and their laws. So Palestinian lives matter. Russian lives matter. Jewish lives nah. Ukrainian lives likewise nah.

 

[FJAG]

Obviously enemy lives and welfare matters.

Not until they surrender.

 

[Genetk44]

Putin isn’t going to accept any type of peace deal short of him being able to keep not only the land he has taken but also the rest of the three provinces.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not until they surrender.

I'm certain we can't employ military force indiscriminately against civilians, and equally certain there are means we can't employ against combatants. Regardless, we're not really at war with Russia. From where I sit, I'm considering the opposing sides in a war I'm not involved in. Russia's the incontrovertible aggressor, but Ukraine could have made different policy choices - concessions in practical recognition of Russia's interests - that might have forestalled the 2022 invasion.

I give a lot of latitude to "you started it, we'll finish it" - I have certainly done so when discussing what care was "owed" to Japanese or Germans during WW II despite their respective failures to bring their governments to heel - but there are practical limits that apply to conflict short of total industrialized war.

The Biden administration set the benchmark for US involvement; the Obama administration also set one. It is approximately risible to criticize the US under Trump for not doing more. If US intervention has always been off the table, that leaves European intervention. They've had a couple of years; how ready are they to roll? There are no other practical intervenors.

If the US won't push Russia out, and Europe won't push Russia out, and neither the US nor Europe will arm Ukraine on the scale needed to push Russia out, then Russia isn't going to be pushed out. If Russia isn't going to be pushed out, and obviously isn't going to be persuaded to remove itself by any other pressures applied or realistically in contemplation, that leaves bringing things to an end to staunch the killing, which means accepting fait accompli.