Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[gearhog]

17 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

True, when you don't mind sending your troops into combat on unarmored ATV's and armed with Mosin–Nagants and have no regard of their well being, let alone surviving, I guess that does give you a bit of a strategic and tactical advantage.

Is it better to fight someone with a strategic and tactical advantage or negotiate with them?

According to the articles, Russia says it will not negotiate with Zelensky as his term ended on 20 May.  Ukraine was a democracy until May 19, but is now operating under martial law indefinitely as a military dictatorship.

[HeloDude]

Come on now…we all know that supporting ceasefires and peace agreements is only cool if the two sides are Hamas and Israel, and only cool when Hamas wants it.

[Smokin]

On 5/24/2024 at 3:32 PM, gearhog said:

Ukraine was a democracy until May 19, but is now operating under martial law indefinitely as a military dictatorship.

As opposed to Russia.... oh, wait, also a dictatorship.

[GrndPndr]

On 5/24/2024 at 3:32 PM, gearhog said:

Is it better to fight someone with a strategic and tactical advantage or negotiate with them?

So many more factors, like the adversary's motivation.  Are they motivated to stop the shenanigans?  Or, how do their goals change the way they think?  Or, are they just d*cks?

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, GrndPndr said:

So many more factors, like the adversary's motivation.  Are they motivated to stop the shenanigans?  Or, how do their goals change the way they think?  Or, are they just d*cks?

Interesting dynamics indeed.  Russia would gain immensely with a cease fire at current lines.  They can rebuild, re-fit, and retrain current forces.  They would obviously be subject to guerilla style attacks but no conventional force on force battles.  

Ukraine would more than likely be able to do the same but to what levels.  External funding would probably greatly decrease but would still be getting a bunch of help.

I don't see Ukraine just laying down arms and calling it a day though.  We wouldn't if it was our land that was taken.  

[gearhog]

9 hours ago, Smokin said:

As opposed to Russia.... oh, wait, also a dictatorship.

I tend to agree. I think Russia is also dictatorship in a practical sense. However, Russia recently held "democratic" elections. You and I both think it's a sham, so we have democratic elections yet still not have a government that serves the best interests of its citizens. Or, you can dispense with the elections altogether and the notion that we support the "good guys" because of "democracy". Can we say this conflict is not about "freedom and democracy"?

7 hours ago, GrndPndr said:

So many more factors, like the adversary's motivation.  Are they motivated to stop the shenanigans?  Or, how do their goals change the way they think?  Or, are they just d*cks?

That's the nature of any foreign diplomatic relationship. Treaties, peace deals, economic agreements, contract, etc, etc, etc. One side never fully knows what the other is really up to. It's just the nature of deals and negotiations. There's always an inherent risk.

[Smokin]

3 hours ago, gearhog said:

I tend to agree. I think Russia is also dictatorship in a practical sense. However, Russia recently held "democratic" elections. You and I both think it's a sham, so we have democratic elections yet still not have a government that serves the best interests of its citizens. Or, you can dispense with the elections altogether and the notion that we support the "good guys" because of "democracy". Can we say this conflict is not about "freedom and democracy"?

That's the nature of any foreign diplomatic relationship. Treaties, peace deals, economic agreements, contract, etc, etc, etc. One side never fully knows what the other is really up to. It's just the nature of deals and negotiations. There's always an inherent risk.

While I don't like the suspension of elections in any scenario, the situation Ukraine is currently in is likely the most justifiable.  Carrying out a campaign, having debates, and conducting an honest and open election in the middle of a war for their very survival on their own land would likely be a significant distraction from the battle and unlikely to meet the purpose of an election.  How would votes from occupied territory count?  The chances of those votes being cast with a Russian political soldier looking over their shoulder would be almost certain and risk a Russian puppet being "voted" into office.  I don't like the suspension, but I understand it as reasonable.  Biggest problem is the get well plan.  An all out victory is unlikely while Putin is alive, so when will Ukraine hold an election next?

Real Russian political opponents end up dead or in prison.  I don't pretend that Ukraine is a model of a democracy, but Russia very well may be a model of what a democracy is not.  To say that Ukraine postponed the elections and therefore this war is not about freedom and democracy anymore is a bit too jaded at this point in my opinion.

[BashiChuni]

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that."

"So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"

- NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg 07 Sep 2023

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

 

[MCO]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that."

"So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"

- NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg 07 Sep 2023

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

 

Why would NATO sign that? 

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that."

"So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"

- NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg 07 Sep 2023

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

 

I am shocked we didn't capitulate and sign...I mean Putin never lies...

[StoleIt]

8 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that."

"So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"

- NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg 07 Sep 2023

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

 

Ah, yes. The classic "Peace for our time" approach.

[BashiChuni]

NATO didn't need any more members...for what purpose? hope hundreds of thousands of ukranian lives were worth it. foolish.

certainly not a "unprovoked" invasion.

Edited May 27 by BashiChuni

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

NATO didn't need any more members...for what purpose? hope hundreds of thousands of ukranian lives were worth it. foolish.

certainly not a "unprovoked" invasion.

Two questions:

1.  If Ukraine was a member of NATO before this conflict started do you think Putin would have invaded?

2.  Do you believe in promises made, promises kept?

[BashiChuni]

1. there is zero need for ukraine to join nato. it's incendiary and serves no purpose. would the US be upset if canada or mexico joined BRICS or the warsaw pact?

to answer your question...possibly, but no way to know. i think he would have invaded before ukraine joined NATO (such as present day conditions).

2. ironic. generally yes, but historically when has the US kept promises? also which promise are you going to reference?

"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents"

Edited May 27 by BashiChuni

[Smokin]

Was NATO's refusal to sign that ultimatum in 2021 also the provocation of the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014?  How about Georgia in 2008?  To say that NATO refusing to sign an absurd ultimatum constitutes a provocation is absurd. 

Putin is an egomaniac tyrant in charge of a large county.  Small countries nearby rulers like that have always been at risk since the dawn of time.  Putin knew NATO wouldn't sign it.  It was obviously sent as a pretext when he had already decided to invade.  He would have invaded regardless of any treaty because he could and he wanted to.  That's all the reason he needs.

[BashiChuni]

nato expanding up to the borders of russia was provocation.

[ClearedHot]

51 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

1. there is zero need for ukraine to join nato. it's incendiary and serves no purpose. would the US be upset if canada or mexico joined BRICS or the warsaw pact?

to answer your question...possibly, but no way to know. i think he would have invaded before ukraine joined NATO (such as present day conditions).

2. ironic. generally yes, but historically when has the US kept promises? also which promise are you going to reference?

"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents"

I did not ask if there was a need or if there was a purpose, it was a simple question.   Your sort of answer is you think he would have possibly started a war with the west or attacked before they could join.

I didn't ask if the U.S. historically keeps promises, I asked if YOU believe in promises made, promises kept.

You tried to "generally" answer then quoted a speech.  I suggest you review the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain.

 

[Lawman]

Wait I thought they had to invade to stop the Nazis…

Which Russian talking point are we committed too this month?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[raimius]

6 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

certainly not a "unprovoked" invasion.

What act of war did Ukraine commit that caused Russia to respond with a full on invasion?

[Boomer6]

Gents, I'm all for healthy debate, but engaging with a known troll is pointless.

If you'd prefer not to see posts from this simpleton you can go to your Profile > Settings > Ignored Users (scroll towards the bottom) and then enter the name of said simpleton.

Standing by for down votes from simple jack.

Edited May 27 by Boomer6

[BashiChuni]

26 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Gents, I'm all for healthy debate

except you're not. snap.

[BashiChuni]

8 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I did not ask if there was a need or if there was a purpose, it was a simple question.   Your sort of answer is you think he would have possibly started a war with the west or attacked before they could join.

I didn't ask if the U.S. historically keeps promises, I asked if YOU believe in promises made, promises kept.

You tried to "generally" answer then quoted a speech.  I suggest you review the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain.

 

was that promise voted on in the senate and formalized in a treaty? or was it a legally non-binding agreement? is ukraine a part of nato?

Edited May 28 by BashiChuni

[ClearedHot]

11 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

was that promise voted on in the senate and formalized in a treaty? or was it a legally non-binding agreement? is ukraine a part of nato?

So a promise has to be formalized in a treaty or it is ok to runaway in the middle of the night like Uncle Joe did?

[HeloDude]

40 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

So a promise has to be formalized in a treaty or it is ok to runaway in the middle of the night like Uncle Joe did?

Politics is politics.  All politicians break promises, for better or worse.  I care about what benefits American citizens always before I care about what benefits those who are not, regardless if it takes a broken promise to do so.

[BashiChuni]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

So a promise has to be formalized in a treaty or it is ok to runaway in the middle of the night like Uncle Joe did?

you are picking which promises you want to be honored. we promised the Russians no more NATO expansion east. You never addressed that.