War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[ausnp84]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Glad you agree.

But the Russians have set up a very dangerous situation.

If they choose to invade, they will pay a heavy price.

The world is watching.

Have they? Are their war games any different to the US deliberately provoking China?

It’s too nice a day here to argue with somone so heavily biaised, but I’m glad you agree invasions are a bad thing, and perhaps the US Gov will also bear that in mind next time they consider ramming their way of life down another country’s throat...

N

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by ausnp84

Have they? Are their war games any different to the US deliberately provoking China?

It’s too nice a day here to argue with somone so heavily biaised, but I’m glad you agree invasions are a bad thing, and perhaps the US Gov will also bear that in mind next time they consider ramming their way of life down another country’s throat...

N

I suppose I am rather biased political freedom and self-determination. I find that preferable to oppression and censorship.

For the record, I hope I'm wrong here, and Putin doesn't intend to invade the Ukraine.

Enjoy your day.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I understand everything you're saying. I just don't agree with all of it.

What you're saying (and what Russia wants) is for the West to turn it's back on the Ukraine. Then, the Ukraine, having been rejected by the West can go running back to mother Russia. I'm sure Putin would love that.

Not all. You really didn't understand. What we are doing NOW is to turn our backs on Ukraine. It's a crime what we are doing.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

But we have a fundamental disagreement over the importance of self-determination.

On the contrary, we agree completely about the importance of self-determination. Kissinger's solution is the ONLY realistic way to preserve the independence of Ukraine. And what we are doing -- starting back with all the subversive crap we pulled in 2013, for $5 billion! -- leads directly to Ukraine's loss of independence, because using Ukraine like this, as a toy, as a stick to poke the Russians in the eye, we made it inevitable that the Russians would respond this way. Then when they do, we stand on the sidelines and scold! Shame on us!

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

". . . [Kissinger is] saying the Ukraine shouldn't join NATO. They have not. They will not. But that's different from having the U.S. publicly reject the possibility. It's a big nuance. He's also saying the Ukraine should be allowed to make their own choices. . .

Ukraine SHOULD be allowed to make their own choices -- that's the whole point! You didn't understand Kissinger. He advocates making a deal with the Russians guarantying the NEUTRALITY of Ukraine, something the Russians would buy, or maybe would have bought before we let the situation deteriorate to this extent. That requires, among other things, taking NATO off the table. It would cost us nothing since it's obvious to us, if not to the Russians, that Ukraine, the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, has about as much chance of getting into either NATO or the EU as Afghanistan. It would cost us nothing to take this off the able. But we don't -- you see, we don't really want to prevent war in Ukraine, and we don't actually care about the Ukrainians.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . . And if Russia does invade, she will pay a heavy price.

Not indeed. What price will the Russians pay? You think they are afraid of yet more hot air from us? From more sanctions on top of 8 years of them already? If Russia does invade, and I think it's almost inevitable now due to our craven, cynical, blundering, it's UKRAINE who will pay the heavy price.



Not Russia. Russia will achieve her policy goals. Russia would like to have reasonable relations with the West and always did. Would like free trade and investment. Russia needs the West. But not at any cost. Not at the cost of NATO in Ukraine and at the cost of our overthrowing governments there. That's as red a line as ever existed. Why is that so hard to understand? And China is standing back laughing at all of this, and welcoming Russia with open arms. And China, of course, not Russia, is the REAL threat to our geopolitical interests. Now that's a brilliant piece of statesmanship on our part, to drive China and Russia, who don't naturally love each other, into each other's arms.


But that's typical of our consistently self-defeating foreign policy. Look what trillions of dollars and millions of deaths achieved in our Middle East wars conducted since 2001. We spent all that money, killed all those people, for the privilege of greatly worsening our geopolitical position there. Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban, we gave Iraq away to our enemy Iran, Islamic radicalism is rapant, and the only one thing they all agree about now in the Middle East is that they all hate us! It wasn't like that before 2001. Simply brilliant! What we are doing with Ukraine is from the same opera.

[boatman61]

What's its all for.???
So Biden and the Democrats and Boris and the Tories can deflect from domestic incompetency's for upcoming local elections..
And todays comedy show starring Kamala Harris talking about strong borders and controls was the cherry on the cake.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not all. You really didn't understand. What we are doing NOW is to turn our backs on Ukraine. It's a crime what we are doing.

But we don't -- you see, we don't really want to prevent war in Ukraine, and we don't actually care about the Ukrainians.

I do understand what you're saying. But you're mixing in some things that aren't at all facts, and mis-characterizing others.

The United States DOES want to prevent war in the Ukraine. However, going to war with Russia over the Ukraine is politically untenable. There is nobody who has the power to do that and get re-elected. So it's not a possibility. Also, not a requirement, as the Ukraine isn't a NATO member.

The United States cares about the Ukrainians. We believe they should have self-determination and be able to govern themselves. They're entitled to sovereignty. It's a basic principle of the U.N.

The Ukraine has not been admitted to NATO. That is not even on the near-term horizon. But to "Findlandize" the Ukraine in response to the threat of Russian invasion isn't a possibility. I'd be surprised if even Kissinger recommends that right now. Feel free to post a link if he's advocating that. I'm amazed that someone with your impressive understanding of history thinks that could be a possibility. That would be a form of appeasement.

If Russia decides to invade the Ukraine, it's all on Russia. Nobody else. if they have security concerns, there are diplomatic forums to voice that concern. The United States and Europe are open to that.

[laird]

I'm going with dockhead on this one ,the best outcome is that we leave Ukraine as a neutral country
Imho the Russians are not the aggressors in this situation ,it is NATO , we have tried to engineer a situation where we have hemmed in Russia and have missiles in Ukraine

In much the same way that Kennedy stopped the Russians from having missile sites in Cuba ,the Russians do not want Natos hardware in Ukraine

[hpeer]

Mostly questions below. One comment, humans seem to have an infinite capacity to justify right and wrong to meet their needs.

Some years ago I read a German military report about diminishing oil/energy reserves. It noted that oil supply would become limited and as it did Germany would need to realign itself with non-traditional partners along supply lines. Energy would realign its foreign friendships. I believe that was written before the decision to turn away from nuclear electric generation. Now we have new Nordstream pipeline, which Biden has threatened to shut. Natural gas shipping has been heavily diverted from Asia to Europe.

I wonder what else is going on here, how Germany is feeling the pinch, especially with Merkel being gone and new leadership being challenged. We rattle “ sanctions” but there are always 2 sides to a trade, who else would sanctions hurt?

Perhaps this is a little less about Ukrainian than an opportune time to create fractures within NATO? In short, does Putin have some more long range plan to destabilize NATO?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . . But to "Findlandize" the Ukraine in response to the threat of Russian invasion isn't a possibility. I'd be surprised if even Kissinger recommends that right now. Feel free to post a link if he's advocating that. I'm amazed that someone with your impressive understanding of history thinks that could be a possibility. That would be a form of appeasement.

So in order to avoid the appearnce of "appeasing" Russia, you would let Ukraine go to the dogs? Well, that's kind of what we're doing.


Kissinger will be 99 years old in couple of months, and has not spoken out recently to my knowledge. But very many smart people around the world understand that the crisis can't be resolved with addressing Russia's legitimate security concerns. Macron himself talked about "Finlandization" recently, as one possible solution.


Here is an example of the kind of program which has been proposed:


"If we want to stop this from happening, and we should want this, then we will have to come up with a deal which respects a reasonable sphere of Russian interests, the same as we would expect in the same situation. The Russian proposals are overreaching, and I am afraid to say, appear to have been crafted in a way which they knew we could never expect, designed to be refused by us as a justification for an invasion. But I don't think it is impossible to imagine a reasonable deal which could be acceptable by them. "I think such a deal could include something like the following points:
"1. Firm and enforceable guarantees of Ukrainian post-deal territorial integrity.
"2. Russian hands off Donbas, massive Russian and Western aid for reconstruction. Deportation (or perhaps actually repatriation) of Donbas rebels to Russia with lifetime bans on return to Ukraine.
"3. But the West recognizes the annexation of Crimea.
"4. Firm and enforceable guarantees that Ukraine will never be invited into NATO or EU.
"5. Ukrainian neutrality, perhaps, with neither Russia nor the West giving any military assistance, placing any troops, or doing anything to militarize Ukraine. Something along the lines of Henry Kissinger's "Finlandization of Ukraine" might work.
"6. Free trade between Ukraine and Russia. Free or favorable trade conditions between Ukraine and the West (EU and US).
"7. Ukraine open to investment from both Russia and US with exception of a list of strategic industries, which are off limits (especially to the Chinese). Both elements of this point are extremely important to any deal working.
"8. Western hands off the former USSR except for the Baltic States. No meddling in politics or internal affairs, no military relationships, especially Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.
"9. Russia likewise commits to not meddling in politics or internal affairs of these countries, but enforceability would be tricky (we should try, however).
"10. Last but not least, and failing which no deal will ever work--some kind of institutionalized de-escalation between Russia and the West. This would require some kind of far-ranging agreement on principles of the relationship, respect of each other's interests, maybe inclusion of Russia into some kind of consultative body with NATO."


https://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&...42&topicId=106


See also:



https://www.defensepriorities.org/ex...ian-neutrality


https://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&...1&topicId=7195

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . .If Russia decides to invade the Ukraine, it's all on Russia. Nobody else. if they have security concerns, there are diplomatic forums to voice that concern. The United States and Europe are open to that.

The U.S. is NOT open to Russia's security concerns. They have been brushed aside.


Imagine the Soviets had come to the table in 1962 and said "we're open to any kind of diplomatic resolution of this conflict. But removing the missiles is off the table." Would you say the Soviets had been "open to that"? Of course not. You would say that the Soviets don't want a deal and are not taking the negotiation seriously, because they brush aside something which is a genuine red line for us. What we are doing is exactly the same.



Any deal in diplomacy, like any deal in business, has to be mutually beneficial, or it won't be made. A deal which does not respect the red lines of either party will never be made. We say future NATO membership for Ukraine is a red line for us, but as you said yourself, it will never happen anyway. So what kind of red line is that? We're being deliberately intrasigent. We are willing to pee away Ukraine's independence, to preserve that red line we don't even care about? We're not willing to go to war or actually do anything other than scold, for the sake of this thing. The Russians, on the other hand, are willing to go to war for their red line. The negotiation is being conducted by us in a fundamentally incompetent way, either that or it's all for show and we really don't want any deal, and don't want to stop the invasion. In business just like in diplomacy, if you want to make a deal, you have to attempt to come up with something the other side can live with. We haven't done this. Whether out of deliberate mischief or out of cluelessness, I can't say.



So, no. If Russia invades, it will not only be "on them". It will very much be "on us" as well. It will be the latest "triumph" for us in a long series of foreign policy "triumphs" since 2001. This is how great empires decline, by the way.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So, no. If Russia invades, it will not only be "on them". It will very much be "on us" as well. It will be the latest "triumph" for us in a long series of foreign policy "triumphs" since 2001. This is how great empires decline, by the way.

Again, we disagree on this.

If Russia invades, Russia is solely responsible for that act. The lives lost will be on their account. And they will pay a heavy price for this.

Which is why they're lying about it, and trying to come up with some false justification for an invasion. Like the fake genocide thing they tried to pull yesterday. The Ukraine, so far, has done an excellent job of not taking the bait.

I'm no fan of the Biden administration, but they are doing a great job of keeping a white hot spotlight on this.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Perhaps this is a little less about Ukrainian than an opportune time to create fractures within NATO? In short, does Putin have some more long range plan to destabilize NATO?

This is absolutely his goal. But at the moment, it appears to be backfiring. It's a test for NATO for sure. Rather than weaken it, I'm guessing it is actually more of a justification for it. This was tested first by Trump, and now by Putin.

While painful for Germany, this is likely to change their energy plan to be less dependent on Russia.

[AKA-None]

Wow never thought I’d be coming to cf for history lessons

[hpeer]

Letsget,

But Putin, by pushing, is acting as if be thinks he is winning.

What does he know we don’t?

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Wow never thought I’d be coming to cf for history lessons

Great ain’t it?

I love hanging with cruisers.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Letsget,

But Putin, by pushing, is acting as if be thinks he is winning.

What does he know we don’t?

You've got me there. It's certainly not what they're saying in public.

[boatman61]

That's why its called Propaganda.. or the new 'In Word'.. Disinformation.