War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[Dockhead]

OK, so news flash. The Russians have stated their demands! So all this speculation is now at an end -- now we know what they want!

The demands are:

1. Ukrainian neutrality
2. Recognition of Crimean annexation
3. Give up Western weapons.

That's it. Woohoo!

No land grab. No annexation. Just no NATO, and no more discussion about Crimea. They don't even mention Donbas or Luhansk.

Let's see what Zelensky does. The devil is in the details -- what guaranty of neutrality? What IS neutrality, actually? What guaranty that you will respect our sovereignty if we agree? What will you pay us for Crimea? These are very, very serious questions.

But not at all irresolvable questions. It's outrageous, immoral, and wrong (just to clear up any possible misunderstanding) for the Russians to be making these demands, as it were, at gunpoint.

But they are not unreasonable at all. They are not proposing that Ukraine become a puppet -- they are proposing NEUTRALITY. This is very, very big. This is roughly the same thing Henry Kisssinger proposed (which implies that had we been smarter, we could have short cutted all this and made the deal long ago), that we should propose ourselves. Agreeing to these demands (subject to working out the extremely important details) is NOT incompatible with Ukraine freely choosing her own path, and having as good relations with the West, as she has with Russia. This is stupendous.

Now all of a sudden I am not feeling so horribly pessimistic, as I was this morning.

Of course the Russians are clumsy bears, to have to spring this at gunpoint, perhaps not really understand how abhorrent this looks in civilized countries. If they were doing this better, they would have been able to get that negotiation going in a normal way across the table.

But that's not important if it leads to peace, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Ukraine's independence. Zelensky is a very smart guy, notwithstanding his background in television. I thought he was done for. But now he has a chance to be the hero of the decade.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, so news flash. The Russians have stated their demands! So all this speculation is now at an end -- now we know what they want!

The demands are:

1. Ukrainian neutrality
2. Recognition of Crimean annexation
3. Give up Western weapons.

That's it. Woohoo!

No land grab. No annexation. Just no NATO, and no more discussion about Crimea. They don't even mention Donbas or Luhansk.

We agree on the basic facts, but not the characterization. These aren't little asks of another sovereign country. He's telling Ukraine what weapons they're allowed to have? Ridiculous! Putin knows it's not going to happen.

Don't forget, Russia just executed an invasion of this country, and is currently occupying two areas. Sure he didn't mention those. That would be poor salesmanship. Those areas are already effectively annexed.

You keep bringing up Henry Kissinger. I read what he said, and he wasn't wrong. But Kissinger wouldn't advocate giving in to Putin at this point.

Kissinger, from 2014:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction.

Putin's demands, while holding Ukraine under military threat, is only pretext for further invasion. He's not going to get any of the three. He's going to get additional international sanctions, and NATO is going to further bolster protections in the other bordering NATO countries.

How is this not a land grab? He's literally asking for recognition of his PREVIOUS land grab!

This IS a land grab, and Putin isn't done yet.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, so news flash. The Russians have stated their demands! So all this speculation is now at an end -- now we know what they want!

The demands are:

1. Ukrainian neutrality
2. Recognition of Crimean annexation
3. Give up Western weapons.

That's it. Woohoo!

No land grab. No annexation. Just no NATO, and no more discussion about Crimea. They don't even mention Donbas or Luhansk.

Let's see what Zelensky does. The devil is in the details -- what guaranty of neutrality? What IS neutrality, actually? What guaranty that you will respect our sovereignty if we agree? What will you pay us for Crimea? These are very, very serious questions.

But not at all irresolvable questions. It's outrageous, immoral, and wrong (just to clear up any possible misunderstanding) for the Russians to be making these demands, as it were, at gunpoint.

But they are not unreasonable at all. They are not proposing that Ukraine become a puppet -- they are proposing NEUTRALITY. This is very, very big. This is roughly the same thing Henry Kisssinger proposed (which implies that had we been smarter, we could have short cutted all this and made the deal long ago), that we should propose ourselves. Agreeing to these demands (subject to working out the extremely important details) is NOT incompatible with Ukraine freely choosing her own path, and having as good relations with the West, as she has with Russia. This is stupendous.

Now all of a sudden I am not feeling so horribly pessimistic, as I was this morning.

Of course the Russians are clumsy bears, to have to spring this at gunpoint, perhaps not really understand how abhorrent this looks in civilized countries. If they were doing this better, they would have been able to get that negotiation going in a normal way across the table.

But that's not important if it leads to peace, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Ukraine's independence. Zelensky is a very smart guy, notwithstanding his background in television. I thought he was done for. But now he has a chance to be the hero of the decade.

I'm guessing Zelensky has till midnight,then the Russian troops can either invade under gunfire,or proceed into the disputed areas as peace keepers and celebrate the Russian national holiday of "Defenders of the fatherland" on the 23rd,with no bloodshed,and the west can change their underpants

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

We agree on the basic facts, but not the characterization. These aren't little asks of another sovereign country. He's telling Ukraine what weapons they're allowed to have? Ridiculous! Putin knows it's not going to happen.

Don't forget, Russia just executed an invasion of this country, and is currently occupying two areas. Sure he didn't mention those. That would be poor salesmanship. Those areas are already effectively annexed.

You keep bringing up Henry Kissinger. I read what he said, and he wasn't wrong. But Kissinger wouldn't advocate giving in to Putin at this point.

Kissinger, from 2014:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction.

Putin's demands, while holding Ukraine under military threat, is only pretext for further invasion. He's not going to get any of the three. He's going to get additional international sanctions, and NATO is going to further bolster protections in the other bordering NATO countries.

How is this not a land grab? He's literally asking for recognition of his PREVIOUS land grab!

This IS a land grab, and Putin isn't done yet.

It's all predicated on credible enforceability. If it's not possible to guaranty that whatever is agreed is really effectively guaranteed, then it's all out the window. As I wrote already!

Crimea is a fait accomplis, which the whole world has acquiesed in for 8 years. Crimea, as a simple fact, is never going back to Ukraine. Crimea never had anything to do with Ukraine anyway; Crimea does -- let's be honest -- belong to Russia. It's horrible, abhorrent, how the Russians went about it, but the result is neither illogical nor unjust. Let them just pay for it, I would propose. $50 billion or so should do it.

The rest of it is completely reasonable, and is fully compatible with Kissinger's list. Ukraine merely has to be neutral. Within that limitation -- just like Finland after WWII, and Austria -- Ukraine is free to develop in its own way as Kissinger intended.

It's a bloody good deal for Ukraine, something we might have proposed ourselves if we were a little smarter. Unlike our proposals, it is carefully crafted to respond to the needs and the real red lines of the other side. This is deal making.

So now we have a choice:

1. Be neutral and let Russia tell us we can't have Western weapons. But we stay independent and develop the way we want. A la Finland. We have good relations with both East and West.

or

2. Be petulant, and get invaded, dismembered and annexed. But we have the moral comfort that Russia will face horrible, horrible sanctions! Oh my! The mother of all sanctions! That makes it all worthwhile! Sure, I'll have my cities pounded to dust, the flower of our youth slaughtered on the field of battle. But for the moral satisfaction of seeing the West scold Russia for it! So, great!

One of these is a smart option. The other is an option for idiots (or at least, for people who don't care about the real life practical interests of the Ukrainians). I know which one I would choose. And I daresay the Ukrainians are smart enough to make the right choice too.


I have to say -- Putin is a crafty bastard. He is an evil being -- he has put in prison people dear to me, for nothing more than having said the wrong thing. May he rot in hell. But this is very good work on his part -- this is an offer you just can't refuse. After everything else which has happened -- the sheer -- modesty of it. He has created a magnificent theatre on a geopolitical scale. You have to give him credit. History will look back on this with great curiosity.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The implication he's making is that the U.S. is being the bully here, and that Russia is just protecting themselves.

Russia just invaded a sovereign country. That's not protecting themselves, that's being the aggressor. Russia is able to do this because they have overwhelming military might in that region.

Putin's speech last night made the claim that the Ukraine isn't even a country. That certainly appears to be someone trying to rationalize a land grab.

US Embassy's trolling response to Putin's speech: Reference image attached.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp

The meme is a reference to a speech Putin gave on Monday where he claimed that Ukraine was a creation of the Soviet Union and part of Russia's historic territory.

"Ukraine has never had its own authentic statehood. There has never been a sustainable statehood in Ukraine," Putin said. The Russian leader has repeatedly suggested that Ukraine is not a real country, and has referred to Ukrainians and Russians as one people.

Though it's true that Ukraine and Russia have a close history, Putin has offered a distorted, ahistorical representation of their shared past. Russia was in many ways born out of a medieval political federation founded by Vikings known as Kievan Rus, of which Kyiv was once the capital (Novgorod, a Russian city, also played a key role in the empire's history). The name "Russia" is actually derived from Kievan Rus.

And as the meme from the US Embassy in Kyiv alludes to, the present-day Ukrainian capital was a major player in the region long before Moscow even existed. Much of the territory now part of modern Ukraine would be conquered or ruled over by various empires and kingdoms over the centuries — including the Russian Empire. And Ukraine was also a part of the Soviet Union. But like any country, Ukraine has its own distinct history and culture. Ukrainians in 1991 also overwhelmingly voted to leave the Soviet Union in a democratic referendum.

But Putin has effectively suggested that Ukraine's future should be determined by Moscow.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

US Embassy's trolling response to Putin's speech: Reference image attached.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp

The meme is a reference to a speech Putin gave on Monday where he claimed that Ukraine was a creation of the Soviet Union and part of Russia's historic territory.

"Ukraine has never had its own authentic statehood. There has never been a sustainable statehood in Ukraine," Putin said. The Russian leader has repeatedly suggested that Ukraine is not a real country, and has referred to Ukrainians and Russians as one people.

Though it's true that Ukraine and Russia have a close history, Putin has offered a distorted, ahistorical representation of their shared past. Russia was in many ways born out of a medieval political federation founded by Vikings known as Kievan Rus, of which Kyiv was once the capital (Novgorod, a Russian city, also played a key role in the empire's history). The name "Russia" is actually derived from Kievan Rus.

And as the meme from the US Embassy in Kyiv alludes to, the present-day Ukrainian capital was a major player in the region long before Moscow even existed. Much of the territory now part of modern Ukraine would be conquered or ruled over by various empires and kingdoms over the centuries — including the Russian Empire. And Ukraine was also a part of the Soviet Union. But like any country, Ukraine has its own distinct history and culture. Ukrainians in 1991 also overwhelmingly voted to leave the Soviet Union in a democratic referendum.

But Putin has effectively suggested that Ukraine's future should be determined by Moscow.

Indeed. I really don't know why Putin made that speech. It sounds -- off key. My best guess is this was part of the virtual artillery barrage of threats, to soften them up for the unexpectedly soft offer to come. Kind of a carrot and stick approach, perhaps.



It's true that Ukraine wasn't a "real country", historically. But so what? This is irrelevant. Ukraine BECAME a real country in 1991, and has more than 30 years of being a real country. So has just as much right to exist as any other country. Borders need to be respected.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. I really don't know why Putin made that speech...

I think I answered this in an earlier long post. And after Putin's speech, perhaps what I wrote is now more fully appreciated.

Here's the full post (containing the important history about Kievan Rus): https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3578184

and here are the salient points relating to Putin's speech, where he pretty much says the same thing, but from a Russian point of view:

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Above and beyond all the other relatively modern factors such as defense/NATO issues (real or imagined), buffer state, rebuilding the USSR, election and domestic considerations, etc, etc, there is another major factor (perhaps even THE major factor) that is often missed in these discussions:

Modern day Ukraine is the true precursor and cradle of Russian history, religion, and civilisation, from 1000 years and more ago.

You could draw some parallels with Israel and Jerusalem, with Saudi Arabia and Mecca, and other similar examples.

Originally Posted by jmh2002

So for some it remains a great tragedy that the cradle of Russian history, religion, and civilisation, from 1000 years and more ago, was created in what is now another country, remains in what is now another country, outside Russia, outside direct Russian influence, and is in fact looking further and further away from Russia as time passes. Amongst some this is considered a great wrong that must be righted, at any and all costs.

Looking back at the great wars in history, those facts alone should not be underestimated as reasons to start and continue yet another one.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

I think I answered this in an earlier long post. And after Putin's speech, perhaps what I wrote is now more fully appreciated.

Here's the full post (containing the important history about Kievan Rus): https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3578184

and here are the salient points relating to Putin's speech, where he pretty much says the same thing, but from a Russian point of view:

Well, sure. That's the kind of speech you would give, a la Henry V (Hank Cinq), on the eve of a great battle. It's the logical and rhetorical foundation for wiping Ukraine off the face of the map.

And then right after that, he comes up with a settlement proposal where Ukraine's sovereignty is respected.

Dissonance?


Or craft?


Is Putin doing a Crazy Ivan on us?

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Dissonance?


Or craft?


Is Putin doing a Crazy Ivan on us?

or is it just Putin's / Russia's normal lies... ?

We need to get real, Russia lies - constantly, and Russia goes back on it's word - constantly.

Much as I have a great fondness for Eastern Europe and it's people, and they are family to me, my eyes are also wide open that in many respects they are not to be trusted.

And in europe, in general that gets worse, the further east that one goes.

(it actually tends to noticeably change once you cross the border from France into Italy, and continues to deteriorate thereafter )

[Van Der Beek]

The Ukrainians have inhabited these lands for a very long time, that they officially became a country in 1991 is, as pointed out, irrelevant, and it's not as if they recently moved into these lands after first having dispossessed another ethnicity/tribe.

Russians can't exactly make such a claim. Just ask the Germans, the Finns and the Baltic countries.

[jmh2002]

The actual country called 'Russia / Russian Federation' only became a country in 1991 too.

Does that / should that remove all it's history / historical links too?

Of course not, but you see that there is some willful blindness here from President Putin.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

The actual country called 'Russia / Russian Federation' only became a country in 1991 too.

Does that / should that remove all it's history / historical links too?

Of course not, but you see that there is some willful blindness here from President Putin.

Not so much "willful blindness" as "obvious nonsense". We really don't know what he was on about.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not so much "willful blindness" as "obvious nonsense". We really don't know what he was on about.

Actually, we do.

[Muaddib1116]

Dockhead, why is the Ukraine petulant if they decide to stand against this aggression? Why is the West a bully for trying to move the Ukraine towards democracy and western values? Why is Russia and Putin forced into this action with no way out? Why do we have to give Putin credit for his very good work with this, for his magnificent theater?

You've stated your disapproval of Russian behavior, but the way you word your analysis of the situation really seems to inject approval and disapproval that you claim not to be giving.

You seem to very heavily lean towards appeasement strategies here, yet you acknowledge that the Ukraine being an independent Nation for 30 years is enough to give them the right to exist, independent of Russia. Off topic, but I'm really curious what your stance on Taiwan is. If China makes aggressive demands after military intimidation, would you recommend that Taiwan disarm and cede the Kinmen islands? After all, western influence in Taiwan has surely forced China's hand?

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Actually, we do.

Yes, President Putin / Russia are not the first to try and rewrite history - it's a common theme throughout eternity to justify a certain position, or a certain existence.

It was pretty easy in the past when the masses didn't have access to all of the information that we have now.

Even the DNA studies are changing the understanding of history as we knew it, showing for example that certain ethnic groups were, or were not somewhere at sometime, or did or did not mix with other groups, etc. It's just one example.