Ukraine War

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

13 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Why is a UN-mandated neutral Ukraine a bad idea?

You just really don’t know how any of this shit works, do you?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

While we're talking about things that are impossible, why don't we just get the Avengers to guarantee Ukraine's security?

That'd be nice, but that whole Sokovia Accords prevents them from interfering. Frustrating for sure.

[RomaVicta 29,984]

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win.

I was going to neg the last part for dishonesty until I went back and read your opening that makes it an opinion. I don't neg for gross misunderstanding of a situation. I honestly don't know what lens you're looking through to get the impression that Ukraine could have been goaded into a war against a fading superpower. 

Should we fear that a resentful Mexico or Canada might be "goaded" into picking a military fight with the United States? Will a new war erupt between France and England due to the goading of a third party. Would the US be capable of such a goad?

Should the world be on alert for war goading?

[F250 28,817]

The political shake-up from this war will be interesting for both parties. How will the GOP handle the Trump Nationalists and what will happen with the Progressives and the Democratic party?

[crash_davis 23,114]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

The political shake-up from this war will be interesting for both parties. How will the GOP handle the Trump Nationalists and what will happen with the Progressives and the Democratic party?

Fuck both of them. Both are rotting their respective parties from within and taking America down with it.

[F250 28,817]

7 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Fuck both of them. Both are rotting their respective parties from within and taking America down with it.

[956 Worldwide 34,747]

17 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I was going to neg the last part for dishonesty until I went back and read your opening that makes it an opinion. I don't neg for gross misunderstanding of a situation. I honestly don't know what lens you're looking through to get the impression that Ukraine could have been goaded into a war against a fading superpower. 

Should we fear that a resentful Mexico or Canada might be "goaded" into picking a military fight with the United States? Will a new war erupt between France and England due to the goading of a third party. Would the US be capable of such a goad?

Should the world be on alert for war goading?

The interesting question about Mexico or Canada isn’t hypothetical Russian or Chinese troops in those countries. The interesting question is very real, and it is “why do these two countries not feel the need to seek some form of security agreement to protect them against their neighbor, which is the most powerful nation on the planet.”

[TurkeyChew 383]

27 minutes ago, F250 said:

The political shake-up from this war will be interesting for both parties. How will the GOP handle the Trump Nationalists and what will happen with the Progressives and the Democratic party?

I think this whole thing is a referendum on being over-leveraged in globalization and you'll see a move back to some domestic/nationalism around high-value, high-impact, and highly-political areas (e.g. Oil in Germany, for example). Or at least a hard look at the ledgers and an attempt to de-risk and de-couple from unfriendly or potentially risky countries as trading partners.

Edit to add, read this from NYT blog as well:

Quote

 

Larry Fink of BlackRock sees an end to globalization. In his latest letter to shareholders, the asset management giant’s co-founder and C.E.O. writes that Russia’s invasion has broken the cross-border bonds between countries, companies and people that were already strained by the pandemic:

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and its subsequent decoupling from the global economy is going to prompt companies and governments worldwide to re-evaluate their dependencies and re-analyze their manufacturing and assembly footprints — something that Covid had already spurred many to start doing.

Howard Marks of Oaktree predicts a similar shift in his latest investor letter, citing the security risks of Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and the U.S. outsourcing of computer chip manufacturing:

The recognition of these negative aspects of globalization has now caused the pendulum to swing back to local sourcing. Rather than the cheapest, easiest and greenest sources, there’ll probably be more of a premium put on the safest and surest.

The war will have many long-term economic consequences, the two note:

De-globalization will push inflation even higher, Fink writes, forcing central banks to choose between higher prices or lower economic activity. And Marks writes that countries whose economies benefited from outsourcing will be hurt from any reversal. That said, Fink sees countries like Brazil, Mexico and the U.S. benefiting from more local production.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by TurkeyChew

[Brisketexan 105,279]

2 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Buckle up. 
 

  Hide contents

In his nine years selling fertilizer to corn and rice farmers in West Africa, Malick Niang says he has never seen such a severe supply crunch—or such high prices.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, shipping companies have avoided docking at St. Petersburg, Russia, to collect goods, Mr. Niang said. That, together with the impact of the West’s financial sanctions against Moscow, means fertilizer exports from Russia—the world’s largest producer—have fallen sharply. Mr. Niang contacted sellers elsewhere, such as in Senegal and Morocco, but was told their order books are full until the end of the year.

“Maybe we will find one or two options different from Russia, but it’s going to be very expensive,” he said.

Fertilizer prices were already high before the war. They have now reached record levels amid a precipitous drop in Russian supply, according to CRU Group, which analyzes commodity markets. At the same time, more-expensive natural gas, another Russian export and a crucial ingredient in fertilizer-making, has led European fertilizer factories to scale back production.

The result is that fertilizer is about three to four times costlier now than in 2020, with far-reaching consequences for farmer incomes, agricultural yields and food prices.

 

In Indonesia’s East Java province, corn farmer Nurhadi, who goes by one name, has bought half his usual fertilizer stock, relying instead on animal dung, which isn’t as effective and will result, he said, in a substantially reduced yield. In Colombia, which depends on Russia for one-fifth of its fertilizer imports, potato farmer Ana Elvira Sanabria has switched to raising cattle and growing a local fruit called uchuva, which needs less fertilizer.

“Last year at this time, most of us had land ready to plant,” she said. “This year much of it is fallow.”

Farmers’ struggles began before the war. Higher energy costs last year pushed up fertilizer prices, as did new curbs and export-licensing requirements by China, Turkey, Egypt and Russia. Faustin Lohouri Bi Tra, a farmer who grows seeds for other planters in Ivory Coast, said he watched with horror as the price of urea fertilizer quadrupled over the past nine months. “It’s like a scary movie,” he said.

Smaller harvests will hit developing countries the hardest, forcing their cash-strapped governments to import large quantities of staples such as wheat at high prices, agricultural experts say. Global food prices in February touched their highest point since the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization began collecting monthly data three decades ago.

A fertilizer plant in Russia, whose exports of the commodity have tumbled.

PHOTO: ANDREY RUDAKOV/BLOOMBERG NEWS

Food insecurity is likely to worsen. The Global Network Against Food Crises, an alliance of humanitarian and development groups, estimates that by last September, 161 million people across 42 nations in 2021 faced acute malnutrition or were forced to sell assets or take other desperate measures to procure food—up 19% from the start of the year.

“I am deeply concerned that the violent conflict in Ukraine, already a catastrophe for those directly involved, will also be a tragedy for the world’s poorest people living in rural areas who cannot absorb the price hikes of staple foods and farming inputs that will result from disruptions to global trade,” said Gilbert Houngbo, president of the U.N.’s International Fund for Agricultural Development, last week.

 

The disruption in wheat supply from Ukraine could have been a boon for some of the world’s major food exporters, among them Argentina, and farmers such as Gabriel Pellizzon. Instead, Mr. Pellizzon, who grows wheat, corn and soybeans on about 3,700 acres in Argentina’s central Córdoba province, said he is likely to slash production about 30%. Omar Bachetta, a farmer in the country’s Santa Fe province, said he is cutting back on fertilizer. Urea now costs $1,400 a ton, up from $800 last year and $500 the year before, Mr. Bachetta said the farmer.

“The reduction in the sowing of wheat is going to be considerable this year,” he said.

Fertilizer producers are warning of continuing shortages. After Russia’s invasion sent European natural-gas prices to record levels, many companies reduced production of ammonia, which is used to make nitrogen fertilizers. Although prices of European natural-gas futures have fallen since early March, they remain roughly 40% higher than they were before the invasion of Ukraine.

 

Borealis AG, a large European fertilizer maker, said this month it is running its ammonia plants at reduced capacity. Nitrogénművek Zrt., a Hungarian producer, said it is temporarily halting ammonia production. Norway-based Yara International, one of the world’s largest fertilizer producers, said in early March that it would limit production at plants in France and Italy, bringing down its European ammonia and urea production to around 45% of capacity.

“Our concern over the coming season is that nations already in a vulnerable position will face deteriorating conditions, in particular if dependent on net imports of both food and fertilizers,” said Yara spokeswoman

Even if natural gas were to become less costly, rebooting ammonia plants is expensive, said Tony Will, chief executive and president of CF Industries Holdings Inc., a nitrogen-fertilizer manufacturer based in Deerfield, Ill. The company has kept one of its U.K. plants shut since September.

“We need to have a window that looks like we can operate it for at least three to six months profitably. Otherwise, it’s really hard to begin the startup process,” Mr. Will said. “We don’t see the window as a likelihood at the moment.”

 

You failed to finish your post.  You left out the part where you say "thus, the answer is clearly -- MORE CRYPTO."

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This entire post is a cope cage.

First principle— Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was not motivated by Ukraine possibly joining NATO one day. 

Until you can accept that simple truth, it’s pointless to pontificate on how to end or what should have been done. Step one is not to believe the things Russia says in diplomatic statements but look at what they do. 

The bolded.  When the point of origin of your entire analysis is flatly wrong, the entire analysis collapses.

Putin decided to invade Ukraine to 1) re-expand the Russian empire, and 2) prevent his slavic subjects from seeing a rapidly reforming and approaching-functional slavic liberal democracy right next door.  It has little to do with "NATO nearby scares me," and nothing to do with "there are some nazis there."  The two points listed provide 95% of the reasons this happened.

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The UN. Force Russia to attack United Nations troops. If they think world opinion is against them now, see what happens then.

Strategically, as dumb as it gets.  The blue helmets, peacekeeping in a neutered Ukraine, would be overrun in hours.  Without a stiff resistance, the Russian army would have marched to the Polish border in 48 hours...which is what they'd be able to do in your scenario.  Conquest of Ukraine would be a fait accompli, and after that fact, leaving a response to the dithering UN?  Bitch please.  Might as well just hand Putin the keys to all of Ukraine, because go ahead and skip to the ending.

[jimmyjazz 46,107]

20 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The interesting question about Mexico or Canada isn’t hypothetical Russian or Chinese troops in those countries. The interesting question is very real, and it is “why do these two countries not feel the need to seek some form of security agreement to protect them against their neighbor, which is the most powerful nation on the planet.”

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

25 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The interesting question about Mexico or Canada isn’t hypothetical Russian or Chinese troops in those countries. The interesting question is very real, and it is “why do these two countries not feel the need to seek some form of security agreement to protect them against their neighbor, which is the most powerful nation on the planet.”

The obvious answer is that Russia hasn't been goading Canada into getting attacked by us

[bangkok 89]

i'd hate to see this drag on for months, and it seems to be heading that direction. the longer this continues, the more desperate putin becomes. even the discussion of nukes possibly being used is a discussion that shouldn't be happening.

we'll keep sending tons of weapons to ukraine, and that pisses putin off as much as the sanctions do. we'll do everything we can to give ukraine support while closely watching putin's reaction to avoid crossing the line.

it's clear we have some intelligence closely tied to the kremlin. but.. is that best?

i think we should throw out a lifeline, where both sides can walk away and claim victory or at least a draw, a stalemate, a treaty?

how do we do that?

a 50km or so demilitarized / peacekeeping zone 50km deep into the ukrainian side of the border.

anyone russia wanted to "liberate" can move freely into russia if they choose.

no violence within. if you want russian rule, go to that side. if you don't, go to the other side.

treaty signed includes no nato for ukraine for some-odd number of years, but no promises either if nato countries further bolster ukrainian defenses or support democracy there. and i'm sure russia would also counter with their own shit like "ok, fine, but no promises from us either and we'll support pro-russia government there and regroup for our next moves too." under the table, of course. kind of a fuck you, yea fuck you too, but lets fuck off for awhile.

thats better than status quo from both sides, and russia could walk away claiming they liberated ukraine from the neo nazi's and end most of the sanctions.

then putin could propagandize that to the general population and claim success. ukraine would also be able to say they successfully defended themselves and gained alot of support from the west, defensively, politically, and financially.

something like that on the cards, or am i an ignorant idiot?

tl;dr: can putin be given a face-saving out, and what does that entail? or are we committed to making mad vlad prove he's actually, truly mad and accepting the consequences of that?

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

3 minutes ago, bangkok said:

it's clear we have some intelligence closely tied to the kremlin. but.. is that best?

You mean as opposed to not having that? Is that a serious question?

[Caponata 151]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

"I hate countries messing with other countries. Also, Ukraine should have their foreign policy dictated by all the other countries."

PuTiN pUpPeT!!1!1

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

6 minutes ago, bangkok said:

anyone russia wanted to "liberate" can move freely into russia if they choose.

What was stopping them from moving from Ukraine to Russia before the invasion?

[bangkok 89]

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You mean as opposed to not having that? Is that a serious question?

no, i'm suggesting an end to the violence is superior to an indefinite supplying of arms to ukraine that would continue the destruction and spur potential escalation. the intelligence comment was referenced towards - that's how we're monitoring how we can avoid "crossing the line."

our intelligence determines that line, putins thinking.

i'm saying the game of "how far can we go?" inevitebly leads to escalation.

why do that, if we can offer a peaceful alternative where both sides can agree to disagree and find support on either spectrum.

[RomaVicta 29,984]

22 minutes ago, bangkok said:

i'd hate to see this drag on for months, and it seems to be heading that direction. the longer this continues, the more desperate putin becomes. even the discussion of nukes possibly being used is a discussion that shouldn't be happening.

we'll keep sending tons of weapons to ukraine, and that pisses putin off as much as the sanctions do. we'll do everything we can to give ukraine support while closely watching putin's reaction to avoid crossing the line.

it's clear we have some intelligence closely tied to the kremlin. but.. is that best?

i think we should throw out a lifeline, where both sides can walk away and claim victory or at least a draw, a stalemate, a treaty?

how do we do that?

a 50km or so demilitarized / peacekeeping zone 50km deep into the ukrainian side of the border.

anyone russia wanted to "liberate" can move freely into russia if they choose.

no violence within. if you want russian rule, go to that side. if you don't, go to the other side.

treaty signed includes no nato for ukraine for some-odd number of years, but no promises either if nato countries further bolster ukrainian defenses or support democracy there. and i'm sure russia would also counter with their own shit like "ok, fine, but no promises from us either and we'll support pro-russia government there and regroup for our next moves too." under the table, of course. kind of a fuck you, yea fuck you too, but lets fuck off for awhile.

thats better than status quo from both sides, and russia could walk away claiming they liberated ukraine from the neo nazi's and end most of the sanctions.

then putin could propagandize that to the general population and claim success. ukraine would also be able to say they successfully defended themselves and gained alot of support from the west, defensively, politically, and financially.

something like that on the cards, or am i an ignorant idiot?

tl;dr: can putin be given a face-saving out, and what does that entail? or are we committed to making mad vlad prove he's actually, truly mad and accepting the consequences of that?

I think your post is sincere. I don't think you're an ignorant idiot or even an above average idiot. Or even an idiot at all. You're brainstorming solutions for ending the killing. 

As What the Buck wrote, Ukrainians could have moved to Russia prior to the invasion.

Further, giving up 50 miles of border territory isn't a small ask. Ukraine seems sincere in fighting for sovereignty, I doubt even asking them to do as you describe would gain anything more than suspicion about the solidity of the asker.

Also, what cities that have fought hard would be ceded to Russia? The move would be a great betrayal of those cities who bled on the front line. You'd be giving up Kharkiv and Mariupol, a major city and port that have offered themselves up to annihilation in defense of the common cause of Ukraine. 

The 50-mile cession of Ukraine would be a non-starter with any country.

Edited March 25, 2022 by RomaVicta

[Willfully Horn 8,047]

13 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What was stopping them from moving from Ukraine to Russia before the invasion?

e is for Edward, who died of ennui.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You failed to finish your post.  You left out the part where you say "thus, the answer is clearly -- MORE CRYPTO."

.

It’s implied.

Massive expansion of the monetary base has helped lead to the high inflation and elevated commodity prices that were already present before Russia invaded. 
 

[Guest Lobo]

If only we had an American leader who knew Putin better than anybody.  Such a person could save the world! 

[mchookem 16,369]

On 3/24/2022 at 10:11 AM, Red Five said:

Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb. 

counterpoint:

 

[bangkok 89]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What was stopping them from moving from Ukraine to Russia before the invasion?

i don't know.

that's why i'm asking if there's a legitimate peace offer in the cards here - how can russia claim they liberated those damn oppressed pro-russians living in ukraine from the neo nazis, as their propaganda suggests was the purpose of the invasion.

somethings got to give - and we need to look to give putin a less violent, or non-violent out. 

[jimmyjazz 46,107]

Or maybe we need to just ignore his bullshit and help Ukraine fight him off.'

"Ukrainian Nazis".  Good lord.

[wildcat09 29,377]

The posters who think Putin is willing to agree to something that might resemble a "reasonable" compromise are doing a whole lot of wishful thinking.

[bangkok 89]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Or maybe we need to just ignore his bullshit and help Ukraine fight him off.'

"Ukrainian Nazis".  Good lord.

right, it's bullshit, i agree.

but give him an out.

let him preach his bullshit to his supporters and let him claim some sort of (fake) victory, before this escalates further.

ending the violence should be our goal here, no?

[Biff Tannen 45,713]

SIAP, but this seems like it could be a problem. 

 

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, bangkok said:

right, it's bullshit, i agree.

but give him an out.

let him preach his bullshit to his supporters and let him claim some sort of (fake) victory, before this escalates further.

ending the violence should be our goal here, no?

No, our goal should be finishing what the Germans started.  The annihilation of Russia so this shit stops happening.  

The evacuation of the entire country.  From Murmansk to Magadan.  From the Black Sea to the Bering Sea.  From Belarus to Barnaul.  Not a single Russian left.  

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

1 minute ago, bangkok said:

no, i'm suggesting an end to the violence is superior to an indefinite supplying of arms to ukraine that would continue the destruction and spur potential escalation. the intelligence comment was referenced towards - that's how we're monitoring how we can avoid "crossing the line."

our intelligence determines that line, putins thinking.

i'm saying the game of "how far can we go?" inevitebly leads to escalation.

why do that, if we can offer a peaceful alternative where both sides can agree to disagree and find support on either spectrum.

Putin has a peaceful solution anytime he wants to take it. He won’t do that. This is a war of aggression pure and simple. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. Even if Ukraine eventually joined NATO, it wouldn’t put a stop to their shared history and culture with their Russian neighbors. Folks could travel back and forth freely, enjoy free trade and their shared heritage.

The problem is that Putin wants control. He wants ownership of Ukraine. It’s not enough that they can be friendly neighbors on an equal footing, which wouldn’t hurt anybody and would pose no threat to Russia. NATO exists as a defense to Russian aggression and Putin is demonstrating why NATO was created in the first place. There is no legitimate argument for why Ukraine should give up any of her territory in order to appease Putin and have peace. And there’s no reason to assume that would be a lasting peace if they tried. It’s easy to see why Ukraine would want to join NATO  Did you watch the drone footage of the destruction of Mariuopal?

There are a lot of reasons to be critical of our intelligence services, and a long list of administrations that have mismanaged them for political reasons. But it appears that we’re winning the information war here and Biden’s sharing of our knowledge that we know exactly what the Russians are up to appears to be a pretty effective strategy. He’s an old cold warrior and might be just the right person for the job at this time. At least he’ll listen to our intelligence services and not take Putin at his word like TFG. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

21 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

e is for Edward, who died of ennui.

D is for doe, a female deer. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

6 minutes ago, bangkok said:

i don't know.

that's why i'm asking if there's a legitimate peace offer in the cards here - how can russia claim they liberated those damn oppressed pro-russians living in ukraine from the neo nazis, as their propaganda suggests was the purpose of the invasion.

somethings got to give - and we need to look to give putin a less violent, or non-violent out. 

Nobody on here wants to hear that kind of pussy talk, esp because so many of them are clairvoyants who can read Putin's mind. They know his secret plans for restoring the USSR and/or the institution of Pan-Slavia and know better than to go by what's he's done in the past and said he would do in the future. 

Why the fuck does any sane American give a flip if Ukraine gets to determine its foreign policy?

Putin would not be well advised to invade a UN-occupied Ukraine and thinking he would is stupid. 

Y'all's minds are clouded with war fever right now. I've never seen the like, not even in the jihads against Saddam or maybe even bin-Laden, which was the one invasion I backed, but only as a limited time search and destroy misson, not a twenty year failed attempt at nation building. Someone upthread hailed this as the comeback for Neocon foreign policy. Comeback to what? When were the glory days? Where are the success stories?

 

[ConferenceRoom 6,145]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

D is for doe, a female deer. 

Re, a drop of golden sun. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

8 minutes ago, bangkok said:

right, it's bullshit, i agree.

but give him an out.

let him preach his bullshit to his supporters and let him claim some sort of (fake) victory, before this escalates further.

ending the violence should be our goal here, no?

The best solution is that some Russian general puts a bullet through Putin’s brain before he can launch a nuke. I do wish Biden would publicly remind Putin that we have nukes too and ask him what he’s fighting for if it means reducing Moscow to a smoldering cinder.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The best solution is that some Russian general puts a bullet through Putin’s brain before he can launch a nuke. I do wish Biden would publicly remind Putin that we have nukes too and ask him what he’s fighting for if it means reducing Moscow to a smoldering cinder.

Or alternately, we work toward a truly neutral Ukraine.

[bangkok 89]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Putin has a peaceful solution anytime he wants to take it. He won’t do that. This is a war of aggression pure and simple. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. Even if Ukraine eventually joined NATO, it wouldn’t put a stop to their shared history and culture with their Russian neighbors. Folks could travel back and forth freely, enjoy free trade and their shared heritage.

The problem is that Putin wants control. He wants ownership of Ukraine. It’s not enough that they can be friendly neighbors on an equal footing, which wouldn’t hurt anybody and would pose no threat to Russia. NATO exists as a defense to Russian aggression and Putin is demonstrating why NATO was created in the first place. There is no legitimate argument for why Ukraine should give up any of her territory in order to appease Putin and have peace. And there’s no reason to assume that would be a lasting peace if they tried. It’s easy to see why Ukraine would want to join NATO  Did you watch the drone footage of the destruction of Mariuopal?

There are a lot of reasons to be critical of our intelligence services, and a long list of administrations that have mismanaged them for political reasons. But it appears that we’re winning the information war here and Biden’s sharing of our knowledge that we know exactly what the Russians are up to appears to be a pretty effective strategy. He’s an old cold warrior and might be just the right person for the job at this time. At least he’ll listen to our intelligence services and not take Putin at his word like TFG. 

sure he does but jesus fuck you'd have to be naive to think that's an option for putin, politically speaking.

it's not.

yes this was a war of aggression, yes it was unjustified.

and yes, we need to find a way to end it without escalating it further.

so here's the choice: tell ukraine to concede a bit, and we'll bolster their defenses, support their democracy, help rebuild, whatever the fuck they want, but let putin claim (fake) victory too. he got his ass kicked, that's clear to see. but let him walk away and claim success. why the fuck not?

so putin's options are either to be given a lifeline, or escalate tremendously.

the former is best.

give that motherfucker a lifeline, first, for fucks sake.

[wildcat09 29,377]

3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Nobody on here wants to hear that kind of pussy talk, esp because so many of them are clairvoyants who can read Putin's mind. They know his secret plans for restoring the USSR and/or the institution of Pan-Slavia and know better than to go by what's he's done in the past and said he would do in the future. 

Why the fuck does any sane American give a flip if Ukraine gets to determine its foreign policy?

Putin would not be well advised to invade a UN-occupied Ukraine and thinking he would is stupid. 

Y'all's minds are clouded with war fever right now. I've never seen the like, not even in the jihads against Saddam or maybe even bin-Laden, which was the one invasion I backed, but only as a limited time search and destroy misson, not a twenty year failed attempt at nation building. Someone upthread hailed this as the comeback for Neocon foreign policy. Comeback to what? When were the glory days? Where are the success stories?

 

C'mon man, this was you just a couple of hours ago:

Quote

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

We're not the ones trying to read his mind, you are. We're just watching what he's doing. It doesn't look like he's looking for a face-saving compromise, it looks like he's trying to punish Ukraine for refusing to surrender.

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Or alternately, we work toward a truly neutral Ukraine.

How about we let Ukraine decide what they want Ukraine to be?

Again, you obviously don’t know how any of this shit works.

[wildcat09 29,377]

One would think a good leftist foreign policy worldview would be generally supportive of peoples' right of self-determination and think that imperial aggression is bad and should be opposed.  

[bangkok 89]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The best solution is that some Russian general puts a bullet through Putin’s brain before he can launch a nuke. I do wish Biden would publicly remind Putin that we have nukes too and ask him what he’s fighting for if it means reducing Moscow to a smoldering cinder.

while i agree it would be a good solution, i disagree this is our best policy play as it's purely dependent on chance unless our intelligence is more deeply ingrained there than i'd expect.

so our strategy is: send all the support, hope someone assassinates putin?

doomed to fail.

we want russia to get the fuck out, and give them a reason to do exactly that.

let them have their moral victory, internally. whatever, just stop the violence.

it's clear the real victory was for ukraine though.

no more utter nonsense loss of life.

let politics run its course, maybe putin isn't around in 10 years.

learn our lessons in the meantime.

stop this shit before it gets worse for fucks sake.

if you don't, it gets worse.

[Caponata 151]

50 minutes ago, bangkok said:

i'd hate to see this drag on for months, and it seems to be heading that direction. the longer this continues, the more desperate putin becomes. even the discussion of nukes possibly being used is a discussion that shouldn't be happening.

we'll keep sending tons of weapons to ukraine, and that pisses putin off as much as the sanctions do. we'll do everything we can to give ukraine support while closely watching putin's reaction to avoid crossing the line.

it's clear we have some intelligence closely tied to the kremlin. but.. is that best?

i think we should throw out a lifeline, where both sides can walk away and claim victory or at least a draw, a stalemate, a treaty?

how do we do that?

a 50km or so demilitarized / peacekeeping zone 50km deep into the ukrainian side of the border.

anyone russia wanted to "liberate" can move freely into russia if they choose.

no violence within. if you want russian rule, go to that side. if you don't, go to the other side.

treaty signed includes no nato for ukraine for some-odd number of years, but no promises either if nato countries further bolster ukrainian defenses or support democracy there. and i'm sure russia would also counter with their own shit like "ok, fine, but no promises from us either and we'll support pro-russia government there and regroup for our next moves too." under the table, of course. kind of a fuck you, yea fuck you too, but lets fuck off for awhile.

thats better than status quo from both sides, and russia could walk away claiming they liberated ukraine from the neo nazi's and end most of the sanctions.

then putin could propagandize that to the general population and claim success. ukraine would also be able to say they successfully defended themselves and gained alot of support from the west, defensively, politically, and financially.

something like that on the cards, or am i an ignorant idiot?

tl;dr: can putin be given a face-saving out, and what does that entail? or are we committed to making mad vlad prove he's actually, truly mad and accepting the consequences of that?

There is a lot of money on the line for war profiteers, they're going to stymie peace as much as they can. They're licking their chops at a drawn out proxy war. I Just hope there can be a peace agreement. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

29 minutes ago, bangkok said:

i don't know.

that's why i'm asking if there's a legitimate peace offer in the cards here - how can russia claim they liberated those damn oppressed pro-russians living in ukraine from the neo nazis, as their propaganda suggests was the purpose of the invasion.

somethings got to give - and we need to look to give putin a less violent, or non-violent out. 

How about if they take a vote and let the Ukrainian people decide if they want to be part of Russia or part of their own sovereign state? I’d say the Ukrainian people are already voting with their guns and their lives.

Maybe you’re not familiar with history but a strategy of appeasement has proven to be the wrong course of action. 

[jimmyjazz 46,107]

16 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Or alternately, we work toward a truly neutral Ukraine.

Minus 20%.  Eh, it's only a leg.

[wildcat09 29,377]

6 minutes ago, bangkok said:

while i agree it would be a good solution, i disagree this is our best policy play as it's purely dependent on chance unless our intelligence is more deeply ingrained there than i'd expect.

so our strategy is: send all the support, hope someone assassinates putin?

doomed to fail.

we want russia to get the fuck out, and give them a reason to do exactly that.

let them have their moral victory, internally. whatever, just stop the violence.

it's clear the real victory was for ukraine though.

no more utter nonsense loss of life.

let politics run its course, maybe putin isn't around in 10 years.

learn our lessons in the meantime.

stop this shit before it gets worse for fucks sake.

if you don't, it gets worse.

I don't know if you've noticed, but we're not at war with Russia. Ukraine is. They get a vote here. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

It’s Friday. Time for a musical interlude.

 

[bangkok 89]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

How about if they take a vote and let the Ukrainian people decide if they want to be part of Russia or part of their own sovereign state? I’d say the Ukrainian people are already voting with their guns and their lives.

Maybe you’re not familiar with history but a strategy of appeasement has proven to be the wrong course of action. 

lol, what a condescending comment.

"maybe you're not familiar with history"

wtf?

and a strategy of escalation works, then? historically, speaking of course.

how about if we offer putin and ukraine both some concessions and minimize the loss of life, the damage, the escalation, the threats of nukes and ww3 and all of that shit?

can we aim for an admittedly idealistic goal first and find a peace deal?

you seem to be advocating for escalation.

it's not off the cards from either side, but you give vlad an out first.

why the fuck not, please tell me, mr. history.

[Caponata 151]

42 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Or maybe we need to just ignore his bullshit and help Ukraine fight him off.'

"Ukrainian Nazis".  Good lord.

Moderate Nazis is the preferred nomenclature.

[bangkok 89]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't know if you've noticed, but we're not at war with Russia. Ukraine is. They get a vote here. 

we are damn close to at war with russia, as the leading economic and military power strongly opposed to russia and supporting ukraine.

without our support, it would be over, and overwhelmingly so in russia's favor.

and fuck, yes, we get a vote, and fuck, yes we should support them.

just stop the violence right now.

in our position of power, can we broker a solution to let both sides move on? 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

How about if they take a vote and let the Ukrainian people decide if they want to be part of Russia or part of their own sovereign state? I’d say the Ukrainian people are already voting with their guns and their lives.

Maybe you’re not familiar with history but a strategy of appeasement has proven to be the wrong course of action. 

Putin lacks the capability to be Hitler. False analogy.

The choice is not between "part of Russia" and "sovereign state." It is Russian vassal vs western vassal. Neutrality offers them a way to avoid either of those fates and ebnefit from their heretofore cursed position on the map. Again, like Belgium in the 1830s. 200 years later Belgium is the most boring and bougie country in Europe when once it was a bone to be chewed between the Protestant north and the Catholic west and the Germanic speakers and the Latinate speakers. Ukraine exists on a similar fracture zone where the differences are even more subtle. Neutralize and prosperize and if Putin can't deal with that, that's when we attack.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Minus 20%.  Eh, it's only a leg.

Ask the people of Crimea where they would rather be. This is about popular demand, right?

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

4 minutes ago, bangkok said:

lol, what a condescending comment.

"maybe you're not familiar with history"

wtf?

and a strategy of escalation works, then? historically, speaking of course.

how about if we offer putin and ukraine both some concessions and minimize the loss of life, the damage, the escalation, the threats of nukes and ww3 and all of that shit?

can we aim for an admittedly idealistic goal first and find a peace deal?

you seem to be advocating for escalation.

it's not off the cards from either side, but you give vlad an out first.

why the fuck not, please tell me, mr. history.

You seem to be a Russian shill. 

[Huckleberry 33,076]

29 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Nobody on here wants to hear that kind of pussy talk, esp because so many of them are clairvoyants who can read Putin's mind. They know his secret plans for restoring the USSR and/or the institution of Pan-Slavia and know better than to go by what's he's done in the past and said he would do in the future. 

Why the fuck does any sane American give a flip if Ukraine gets to determine its foreign policy?

Putin would not be well advised to invade a UN-occupied Ukraine and thinking he would is stupid. 

Y'all's minds are clouded with war fever right now. I've never seen the like, not even in the jihads against Saddam or maybe even bin-Laden, which was the one invasion I backed, but only as a limited time search and destroy misson, not a twenty year failed attempt at nation building. Someone upthread hailed this as the comeback for Neocon foreign policy. Comeback to what? When were the glory days? Where are the success stories?

 

Nobody hailed it. You don't read very well, or maybe it's the comprehension part. Either way you're struggling.