• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Political impacts of Ukraine war

How about this one -


US has floated Ukraine ceding Donbas for Nato membership, Zelensky says​


US negotiators have touted the idea of Ukraine withdrawing its remaining forces from the eastern Donbas region in exchange for Nato membership, Volodymyr Zelensky has said.

I hear Chamberlain's ghost has been seen by some in the rooms and corridors during these meetings. Those that see him swear that they hear him muttering 'Land for Peace, land for Peace, don't fall for that trap as I did.'
Witkof and Kushner aren’t negotiating on US, NATO nor Ukraine’s behalf. This is for Putins benefit. Same with eliminating the sanctions on Russian fuels. Making Putin happy makes Donald happy. The 3 of them are vested in Russian Lukoil. Always follow the money.
 
How about this one -


US has floated Ukraine ceding Donbas for Nato membership, Zelensky says​


US negotiators have touted the idea of Ukraine withdrawing its remaining forces from the eastern Donbas region in exchange for Nato membership, Volodymyr Zelensky has said ...
Yeah, I can see consensus among NATO countries (I'm looking at you, Hungary, for one) on letting in a country that'll certainly end up involved in a border dispute needing an Article 5.
 
Last edited:
Is there any compromise on its territorial integrity that would be acceptable or reasonable? To Ukrainians and others?
Luhansk and Crimea for example?
Would there be any piece of our land that would be acceptable if the US or someone else was insisting on it?
Yukon?
Labrador?
X piece?
 
The look on Zelenskyy’s face says “This is a complete waste of time”.
View attachment 103090



As bad as Chamberlain’s deal was, at least he was motivated by buying time for Britain and France to rebuild their militaries and prepare for war with Germany.

I’m confident that is not what is motivating the White House.
I have zero doubt that NATO would make it well past the Urals right here right now against Russia if Nukes were off the table.
 
Meanwhile, on that whole satellite teminal unpleasantness ...
 
I have zero doubt that NATO would make it well past the Urals right here right now against Russia if Nukes were off the table.
If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.

Unfortunately nukes are and will continue to be on the table. As a result there is no real way to "defeat" Russia unless you wish to risk the end of humanity. You can't launch massive missile strikes against them as it might be misconstrued as a nuclear first strike and you can't drive conventional forces deep into the country as they would likely go nuclear to prevent a collapse.

The best you can hope for is to stop a Russian military incursion or push them back off any territory they take, but Russia will still continue to exist as will their opportunity to rebuild and pose a threat again in the future. The same holds true with China.

Probably the best strategy is a true blockade of all their external trade. Break their economy and make them unable to continue the war. That likely means total unrestricted warfare on their merchant and shadow fleets as well as boarding and diversion of 3rd party vessels seeking to break the blockade. It also likely means striking the rail lines, road bridges and pipelines that allow land trade across their borders.

The RCN report that suggested that Canada actually requires a fleet of 22 submarines was probably on the right track.

To my mind Canada's best bet is not to prepare for a big war but rather prepare for a long war. I'd rather see Canada spend its defence dollars on military production capacity, magazine depth and a significant expansion of our Reserve capacity so we're prepared for a long war rather then spending it on a significant expansion of our standing Army.
 
I have zero doubt that NATO would make it well past the Urals right here right now against Russia if Nukes were off the table.

I recall there were a few pople in history who thought the same ;)

Lets Go Napoleon GIF by GIF IT UP
 
As bad as Chamberlain’s deal was, at least he was motivated by buying time for Britain and France to rebuild their militaries and prepare for war with Germany.
Britain was insufficiently prepared for war; France not so much. Germany was not ready in 1938 (wasn't really ready in 1939 either), and did not have a nonaggression pact with the USSR yet. Czechoslovakia was in fact a well-armed country at the time - thirty-odd divisions and a healthy armaments industry. Germany would have started with a two-front war.

Chamberlain was motivated by his belief that Hitler was a man with whom deals could be made. He at least admitted in advance that if Hitler moved on to another conquest, he (Chamberlain) would be proved wrong. CZ paid a heavy price to test his ideals.

The best time to stop Hitler was in the early '30s. The best time to stop Russia was in 2014. Among those who like to play the political blame game, not enough attention is directed at the people who made nice with Russia during that period; unfortunately, none of them is Donald Trump.

I view the Trump administration's repeated attempts to strike a deal as Trump's desire to be seen as a deal-maker, not to be taken seriously. Too many people fixate on those.

The constant whinging about what is to be done in Ukraine has to move away from simply taking whacks at Trump's pinatas. What exactly is it that anyone here wants to be done in Ukraine to conclude the war, and by whom?
 
About 70% of Russia's natural resource wealth is out that way.
But Russia proper, administratively and historical is to the west of the Urals. If they lose that, then the rest become "stans" and or part of China. Even Moscow has had a odd and not a solid relationship with that part of itself, maintaining a grip by limiting infrastructure, sort of like how Toronto views Northern Ontario.
 
end game - a home grown toppling of Putin's regime once the Russian common folk get tired of burying their kids.
 
Back
Top